follow_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral trait that prior context lives server-side and need not be resent, but says nothing about whether the follow-up mutates the session, how cwd/model/effort interact with an existing session, 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?

Two tight sentences with the core mechanic front-loaded and the practical implication (no need to resend context) second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the central mechanic but leaves the session-mutation behavior and return value unexplained. An agent knows when to call it but not how overriding model/effort or cwd affects an existing session.

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 all five parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only reinforces the session_id parameter and adds no guidance on whether model/effort/cwd can or should be overridden in a follow-up.

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 specific verb and resource (continue a prior Antigravity session by session_id) and frames the tool as the follow-up counterpart to an initial delegation, which lets an agent separate it from delegate/start_task. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for the first call, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

"USE THIS for follow-up questions about a prior delegation" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly excludes first-time delegation. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (that a session_id from a prior call must already exist) or of what to do instead when there is no prior session.

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