run_agent_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses credits/models and routes via message injection, which is some behavioral context. However, it omits details like whether the task runs asynchronously, what the output contains, or side effects on conversations, making it only partially transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is concise and well-structured, though it could use the space to add parameter or usage details.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, output expectations, and prerequisites, so an agent would struggle to call it correctly without additional information.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (prompt, source, workspace_dir). It does not explain their meaning, defaults, or relationships, leaving the agent without any added guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Launches') and resource ('autonomous Antigravity AI agent task'), and adds context about using credits/models and message injection. It is clear and distinct from generic actions, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like inject_message or send_spark_to_antigravity_task to differentiate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or compare to related tools such as inject_message or send_spark_to_antigravity_task, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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