Run read-only Antigravity exploration task

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the call blocks until completion, the exact result payload (status, response, usage, files_touched, transcript paths), the default effort, and that headless runs auto-deny gated tools with denied_actions recorded unless auto_approve is set. These are non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and mode, then behavior, then parameter notes; nearly every clause carries information. The telegraphic style (e.g. 'in denied_actions; auto_approve skips') is dense and slightly elliptical, costing a bit of readability.

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?

For a 13-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers blocking semantics, return shape, background collection, and permission denial well. It says nothing about timeout behavior, failure modes, or what status values are possible, which are the remaining gaps for an agent planning recovery.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by stating the default effort is 'low' and explaining that conversation_id continues an earlier thread rather than starting fresh. It also ties background:true to watch_task, meaning not already conveyed by the schema alone.

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 ('Delegate read-only task to agy sub-agent') plus the execution mode ('plan mode, read-only'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling general_task. An agent can pick this tool for read-only exploration without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: prompt must be self-contained, background:true yields a handle to collect with watch_task, and conversation_id resumes a prior thread. It never explicitly contrasts with general_task or says when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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