antigravity_job

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.