antigravity_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting a low bar. The phrase "preserves workspace" adds a modest behavioral claim beyond the annotations, but the surrounding sentence is incoherent and it is unclear what state is touched or returned.

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?

Brief, but the size comes from under-specification rather than economy. The first sentence is not front-loaded with a clear action and the second sentence's meaning is ambiguous, so neither sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations covering return values, the description should explain what a "result" actually is, yet it does not. For a session-scoped tool sitting among seven siblings, this leaves an agent unable to know when or how to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter (taskId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it does not explain what a taskId is, where to obtain it, or whether the task must have been started in the current session. The parameter is effectively undocumented.

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?

"result a task in this MCP server session" is grammatically broken and never states a clear verb+resource (retrieve? submit? finalize?). An agent cannot confidently tell whether this fetches a task's output or produces a result, and it is not clearly distinguished from siblings like antigravity_status or antigravity_forget.

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 second sentence gestures at a distinction from a forget-style operation ("Forget releases in-memory results"), but it is garbled enough that no reliable when-to-use rule can be extracted. No explicit conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given.

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