follow_up

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the server retains full prior context and that the client does not resend history, but it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences. Every clause either clarifies the tool's purpose, explains when to use it, or reveals stateful behavior, with no unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with four parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and the key stateful behavior. It omits the return shape, but that is not likely to be a blocker for a conversational follow-up tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter context by noting that session_id is 'returned by every other tool.' This helps the agent know exactly where to source a required value beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool continues a previous Antigravity session by session_id and explicitly frames it for follow-up questions about a prior delegation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate, which would be used for starting something new.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit 'USE THIS' directive for follow-up questions about a prior delegation, and explains why: the full prior context is already on the server side so nothing needs to be resent. It does not explicitly name exclusions like 'use delegate for a new task,' but the intended usage is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.