Ask Antigravity (new conversation)

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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it starts a new conversation each time, uses silent authentication, returns text, and the model is fixed. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 concise (about 100 words) and well-structured with separate sections for purpose, authentication, return type, model note, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (new conversation) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it authenticates, return format, model details, and when to consider alternatives. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'new conversation'.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema offers; it merely restates or gives usage hints. Per guidelines, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool asks Antigravity a question in a NEW conversation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like antigravity_continue. It specifies the model (Gemini 3.5 Flash High) and provides a verb+resource+scope that is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says it is 'Good for fast tool-calling and short tasks; for heavier reasoning prefer the host model directly.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also mentions authentication via Windows Credential Manager and that the model is fixed, giving additional context for safe invocation.

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