Continue Antigravity conversation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail by noting it uses the exact conversation id per workspace, not the global recent, which helps avoid context confusion. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, auth needs, or state changes beyond that.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose concisely, the second adds essential nuance. No redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description complements the schema well, covering the key behavioral nuance of workspace conversation id. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that a prior conversation must exist, but this is implied. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'workspace' parameter's role in conversation id resolution, which goes beyond the schema's description. Other parameters (prompt, timeout_s, watch) are adequately covered in schema.

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 it 'Continue the Antigravity conversation rooted at this workspace' and explains the use of the exact conversation id. This differentiates from siblings by emphasizing continuation and workspace-specific state, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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 implies usage for resuming a specific workspace conversation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare with sibling tools. The context signals show sibling tools like antigravity_ask, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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