agy_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral trait that the command is executed verbatim without model reinterpretation, but it says nothing about side effects (can a command mutate the workspace?), permissions, error behavior, or whether output is returned raw or summarized.

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 that states the action first and the key caveat second; there is no filler or boilerplate. 'Interpretar ou reformular' is mildly redundant but the pairing does clarify intent.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic (verbatim CLI execution) but leaves side-effect risk, output format, and failure modes unaddressed. It is adequate, not complete.

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 schema already documents 'command' (with slash prefix and example), 'model' (with default), and 'directory'. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond repeating the '/usage' example, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('executa literalmente um comando direto do Antigravity CLI') and gives a concrete example ('/usage'), which is clear and actionable. It also implicitly disambiguates from model-driven siblings by stating the command is not interpreted or reformulated, though it never names agy_exec or the other siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for raw slash-style CLI commands, illustrated by '/usage'. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of how it differs from agy_exec or agy_plan, and no prerequisites or conditions that would route an agent here rather than elsewhere.

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