Record review test evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this writes state non-destructively. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies the tool records client-reported results and that the bridge does not execute or independently verify the command. It also warns against including secrets. It does not describe failure modes or what happens on duplicate recordings.

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?

Four sentences, each front-loaded with essential information: action, binding scope, verification stance, security constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 needn't be explained. The description covers the key behavioral caveats (client-reported, no verification, no secrets) for a write tool with annotations. It is nearly complete, missing only usage alternatives and some parameter meaning (taskId, expectedSha256).

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. It does by naming what gets bound (command, exit code, output) and the security constraint on output. However, it does not explain taskId or expectedSha256 semantics, leaving two of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb (record) and resource (client-executed test evidence) with the binding scope stated (command, exit code, output tied to the reviewed patch). It is distinguishable from siblings like antigravity_test (which presumably runs tests) by clarifying that the bridge does not execute the command. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than naming an alternative 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?

The description implies usage: record a test the client already ran in the isolated copy. However, it does not state when to use this versus antigravity_test or antigravity_verify, nor any preconditions (e.g., patch must be reviewed first). Usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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