agy_task

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delegate a coding task,' which implies action but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or potential impact. No context about timeouts, destructive changes, or return behavior is provided.

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 with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified. It is concise in length but not appropriately sized because it omits essential guidance. The legacy alias note is useful, but the overall content is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide substantial context. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or any behavioral expectations. The tool is completely opaque aside from the basic action.

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 only 10% (only 'prompt' has a description). The description adds no meaning to parameters like mode, model, one_off, add_dirs, thinking, session_id, include_diff, workspace_dir, or timeout_seconds. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents to guess at parameter semantics.

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 delegates a coding task to Google Antigravity, identifying the verb (delegate), resource (coding task), and target. It also notes it's a legacy alias for delegate_task(agent='agy'), which distinguishes it from siblings like agy_ask or agy_plan.

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 legacy alias note implicitly tells agents to prefer delegate_task instead, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when it would be appropriate to invoke this alias directly.

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