antigravity_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description states that it "[f]orgets/releases in-memory results" — a state mutation — which conflicts with a read-only profile. The definition also never says what is returned (task status payload, terminal vs pending states, etc.), so an agent cannot rely on it for behavior.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence appears to be unrelated/leftover text about forgetting and releasing results, which wastes space and confuses rather than front-loading the core action. Two sentences exist but one of them does not earn 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 one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations that are contradicted by the text, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to call the tool correctly or interpret it. It should at minimum state what status is returned and how taskId is obtained.

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?

taskId has 0% schema description coverage and no inline description, so the description must compensate; it only implies the parameter identifies "a task" in the session without stating the format, where the ID comes from, or how workspace scope interacts with it.

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 phrase "status a task in this MCP server session" gestures at a verb (status) and resource (task) but never says concretely whether it fetches, sets, or reports task status, and it is not distinguished from the sibling antigravity_result. The second sentence then describes forgetting/releasing behavior, which muddies the purpose further.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named. The clause "preserves workspace" vaguely gestures at a contrast with antigravity_forget, but the agent is not told the condition under which this tool should be selected over result, review, or cancel.

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