agy_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions preserving context and memory, but fails to disclose that the tool may execute actions requiring permissions (evident from the 'dangerously_skip_permissions' parameter), potential side effects, or what happens on failure. The description is too vague about the tool's actual behavior beyond state preservation.

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 that front-loads the purpose and includes essential behavioral hints (preserving context). There is no fluff or redundant content. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain when to use this versus siblings, does not mention that the tool may perform actions requiring permissions (implied by the 'dangerously_skip_permissions' parameter), and does not describe what the response looks like. The one-sentence description leaves critical operational context unexplained.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds only the notion of 'using the conversation ID,' which is redundant with the schema's parameter description. It does not provide additional format, constraints, or context for parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'continue' and identifies the resource as 'a multi-turn conversation with Google Antigravity.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like agy_run_task or agy_plan, which presumably start new tasks or plans. The mention of preserving context, memory, and changes further clarifies its role.

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 when you have an existing conversation (mentions 'previous turns' and 'conversation ID'), providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., agy_run_task for new tasks). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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