Check a delegated task

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, final response, and conversation_id, and implies it can be called while running (since 'running' is a status). However, it does not state whether it is read-only (safe to call repeatedly), what happens if the task_id is invalid, or if there are any side effects. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence of 18 words, front-loading the purpose and key outputs. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains the purpose and return values but omits parameter meanings, error scenarios, and usage context relative to sibling tools. An agent cannot fully determine correct invocation without additional assumptions.

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 the two parameters. The description does not mention 'task_id' or 'include_output' at all. It only hints at output via 'final response and conversation_id', but the boolean parameter for controlling output inclusion is completely unexplained. This is a critical gap for correct usage.

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 states the tool checks the status of a delegated Antigravity task, listing possible statuses (running/done/failed) and what additional data is returned (final response, conversation_id). It distinguishes from siblings like ag_task_wait (which waits) and ag_cancel (which cancels) by focusing on polling/checking.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ag_task_wait, ag_followup). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the task_id coming from a delegated task, nor does it advise against calling it before the task starts or how to handle errors. The agent must infer usage from context.

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