delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: agy has shell, file-read and web access inside the given cwd, which signals risk. However it omits whether the call blocks or returns a handle (siblings like start_task/task_status suggest an async pattern), what the result looks like, and any timeout or cost behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the capability disclosure. 'Raw delegation' is slightly jargon-y but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return/blocking behavior of a tool that spins up a fully tool-enabled agent. It covers capability scope but leaves the execution model and result shape unstated, which is a real gap for a tool of this 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 description coverage is 100%, so cwd, model, effort and prompt are all documented at the schema level. The description only adds 'in the given cwd', which is redundant with the cwd parameter's own text, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: raw delegation to the Antigravity CLI, with scope ('heavy tasks that don't fit the other tools') and the agent's capabilities. It distinguishes itself from the narrower siblings generically rather than naming them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'For heavy tasks that don't fit the other tools' gives an implied selection rule, but it never says when to prefer delegate over start_task/task_status or what 'doesn't fit' actually means. An agent must infer the boundary itself.

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