antigravity_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job: it discloses authentication requirements ('using your existing Antigravity login (no API key)'), resolution behavior ('never silently substituted'), return contents ('git-verified files_changed and scope_violations'), and retry policy ('AgentBridge never retries on its own'). No contradictions exist.

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 only four sentences, each earning its place: delegation mechanism, resolution policy, return value summary, and retry semantics. It is front-loaded with the primary action and free of redundant filler.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key operational context: auth, resolution, returns, and retry policy. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over codex_run and what happens if the CLI is unavailable, but the 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter-level details.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only references the model/effort resolution vaguely, which is adequately covered in the parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Delegate a task to the Antigravity CLI (`agy`) running as an external worker.' It specifies the verb, resource, and distinctive auth behavior (no API key). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like codex_run, even though the Antigravity-specific naming implies it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (codex_run, bridge_status). It mentions 'One call = one attempt' and 'never retries' as behavioral facts, but does not state usage conditions, prerequisites, or when to choose a different tool. Relevant routing advice (e.g., 'extra high' → Codex) is buried in the parameter descriptions, not the main description.

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