get_antigravity_agent_report

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 clearly indicates a read-only retrieval and lists the report contents, but does not mention failure modes, prerequisites, or whether any state changes occur.

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 compact and well-structured, consisting of two focused sentences that convey the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary detail.

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?

Although the description lists the report contents, it lacks essential context about parameter roles, the relationship between task_id and conversation_id, and the expected output structure. This leaves an agent guessing about how to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The three parameters (source, task_id, conversation_id) are completely unexplained, with no indication of their purpose, format, or whether any combination is needed.

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?

Clearly states the action (retrieves structured status report and latest responses) and specifies the resource (Antigravity), plus the main content areas included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_status or get_bridge_history.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools such as get_agent_status or list_antigravity_conversations. The usage context is only implicit from the description.

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