agy_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that Antigravity can read and write files, run commands, and search codebases, which are significant behavioral traits. It also discloses the return of a conversation_id, but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 three sentences with no fluff: purpose, tool capabilities, and return/coordination hint. Each sentence adds distinct value and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, what the assistant is capable of, and that responses include conversation_id for follow-up. It does not detail the full response structure or edge cases, but the 100% parameter schema coverage compensates for most remaining gaps.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 7 parameters, including defaults and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '发送提示词并获取响应' from Antigravity AI, and clearly names its function as a coding-task assistant. It also distinguishes itself from the agy_conversation sibling by explaining that this tool returns a conversation_id for multi-turn use with that tool.

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 clear usage context by stating it is suitable for code generation, review, refactoring, and debugging tasks. It also signals when to involve agy_conversation for multi-turn dialogue, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or describe cases where agy_models would be more appropriate.

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