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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Check,' which implies a non-mutating operation without stating it explicitly. It does not disclose whether any configuration is changed, whether a network call is performed, or what happens when discovery is unavailable.

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 a single sentence that names the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the action and the three specific check targets, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is simple, with one optional parameter and an output schema, but the description still omits key context: when to choose this over sibling tools, how cwd affects the result, and whether any setup or login is needed. The agent can probably invoke it, but not with full confidence about side effects and scope.

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?

The single parameter cwd is optional, has a null default, and no schema description; the tool description never mentions it. While 'cwd' is a recognizable abbreviation, the description adds no meaning about how it affects the check, so it fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 names a specific action ('Check') and enumerates three concrete targets: AGY discovery, local login-visible models, and the selected Gemini model. It conveys the tool is a read-only status/diagnostic operation, which separates it from sibling tools like antigravity_delegate and antigravity_job, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this check versus using antigravity_delegate or antigravity_job, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether login is required. The intended context is only implied by the verb 'Check' and the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous ('return immediately with a job ID') and warns about edit permissions ('Enable edits only when authorized'). It does not mention rate limits or exhaustive side effects, but covers the most important behavioral traits for a delegated job starter.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and supporting usage guidance following. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the essentials for starting a job and the main prompt-level guidance, but it omits several parameters (cwd, sandbox, timeout_seconds) and does not mention following up via antigravity_check. Given the tool's async nature and six parameters, the description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful guidance for prompt, conversation_id, and allow_edits ('Give one complete goal', 'Pass a previous conversation_id', 'Enable edits only when authorized'). However, cwd, sandbox, and timeout_seconds are not addressed, leaving notable ambiguity for a tool with six parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a delegated Antigravity job and return immediately with a job ID.' This clearly conveys the tool's primary function and distinguishes it from the sibling antigravity_check tool, which is presumably for status retrieval.

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 offers clear usage context: 'Give one complete goal with constraints and expected completion evidence.' It also explains when to use conversation_id and when to enable edits. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to antigravity_job or antigravity_check.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully warns that full results consume the host model's context, but it does not mention potential blocking during wait, side effects of cancel, or whether status/result have different implications.

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 sentences and every part contributes. The action summary is front-loaded and the guidance about context consumption is placed immediately after the recommendation, making the key trade-off easy to notice.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits the relationship to sibling tools and does not explain wait_seconds semantics, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies detail and recommends action=wait, but it does not explain wait_seconds, job_id, or the differences among the action enum values beyond their self-evident names.

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 identifies a specific resource — a delegated Antigravity job — and enumerates the actions available (wait, inspect, retrieve, cancel). It is more specific than the tool name alone, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling antigravity_check.

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 concrete usage guidance: prefer action=wait and detail=compact, and use detail=full only when the complete AGY response is necessary. It does not, however, state when to use this tool versus antigravity_check or antigravity_delegate.

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