Retrieve an Antigravity rule file’s full content and triggers by name or path. Use it to inspect rule logic before orchestrating local workflows.
Reads the full content and triggers of an Antigravity rule file by name or path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_identifier | Yes | Name or file path of the rule (e.g. 'GEMINI.md', 'AGENTS.md', or custom rule name). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation returns 'full content and triggers' of a rule and that it is a lookup by name or path, but says nothing about error behavior when the rule is not found or about permissions. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource come first. It is appropriately sized, though 'triggers' is introduced without elaboration.
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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does and what it returns. With no output schema, more detail on the returned rule structure (e.g. what 'triggers' are) would help, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.
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% with a single well-described parameter that already gives examples ('GEMINI.md', 'AGENTS.md', custom rule name). The description's 'by name or path' adds little beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Reads') and resource ('an Antigravity rule file'), plus a distinguishing scope detail ('full content and triggers') that separates it from the sibling list_rules. It stops short of explicitly naming list_rules or other alternatives, but the read-vs-list distinction is inferable.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_rules for discovery or create_workspace_rule for creation. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.