Read result in chunks

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

Annotations already declare a safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Beyond that, the description discloses meaningful behavior: a 'ready' flag that is false while active, chunked/bounded retrieval, and a contentSha256 that must be carried across requests and used to reconstruct the JSON by concatenation.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core chunked-read purpose is front-loaded. The two operative hints (ready-false polling, sha retention) follow in priority order.

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-shape explanation is not required. The description covers the essential chunked-read workflow, but leaves the sha-mismatch/error behavior and the meaning of a non-ready response underspecified for a stateful paging tool.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It conveys chunking (limit/offset) and the role of contentSha256, but omits the 2-50000 bounds, offset semantics, and what happens when expectedContentSha256 mismatches — leaving key semantics unexplained.

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 ('Read the final CLI result') and clarifies its distinguishing trait: 'serialized as JSON in bounded chunks.' This differentiates it semantically from the full-result sibling antigravity_result, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Returns ready false while active' implies a polling loop and 'keep contentSha256 for subsequent requests' implies repeated paged calls, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over antigravity_result or antigravity_status, and no exclusion guidance.

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