Get Antigravity result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the terminal-state precondition, but says nothing about what happens if the task is still running (error, empty, or block), which is important for a result-retrieval call.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sibling redirect.

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 need not be spelled out. Still missing: the meaning of includeResult and clarification against antigravity_read_result/antigravity_status, which leaves real ambiguity for an agent choosing among result-oriented siblings.

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% for two parameters. The description never mentions taskId's UUID format requirement or, more importantly, what includeResult toggles, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: return terminal result, usage and error once the task finishes. It distinguishes itself from antigravity_preview by scoping that sibling to the patch. However, it does not differentiate from the nearby sibling antigravity_read_result, leaving an overlap an agent must resolve on its own.

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?

It states the condition that selects this tool ('once the task finishes') and explicitly routes patch retrieval to antigravity_preview. It does not exclude or address antigravity_read_result or antigravity_status, which appear to cover adjacent ground.

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