agy_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Manage Antigravity sessions,' which does not reveal whether actions are read-only, destructive (e.g., 'clear' likely resets or deletes), or how switching works. No side effects, permissions, or state changes are mentioned, leaving the agent blind to the tool's operational implications.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. The alias note is front-loaded, which is good, but the rest is too sparse. It does not earn its place because it lacks actionable information. Conciseness without substance is not effective.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, but with no output schema, no annotations, and a description that only says 'manage sessions,' the agent cannot infer return values, side effects, or error behavior. It is missing all behavioral context, making it impossible to call correctly without external knowledge of the legacy alias target.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions neither 'action' nor 'session_id'. The schema defines an enum for action and a free-form session_id, but the description adds no context about what values are valid, how they interact, or what each action does. This is a critical gap.

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 says 'Manage Antigravity sessions,' which identifies a resource (Antigravity sessions) and a generic verb ('Manage'). It does not specify the concrete actions (list, switch, clear) that the schema provides, making the purpose vague. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from other session-management tools like delegate_sessions.

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 opens with '[Legacy Alias -> delegate_sessions]', which hints that delegate_sessions is the preferred tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is given on selecting among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use agy_sessions vs. agy_task or delegate_ask). The alias note provides a mild routing hint but falls short of explicit usage conditions.

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