ask_antigravity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose useful policy details: default read-only mode, workspace_write for edits, blocked shell/MCP/subagents, and automatic permission hooks. It still omits key operational behavior such as whether delegation is synchronous, what is returned, and how timeout or failure conditions behave.

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 short and front-loads the core action plus the main policy choice. The remaining sentences add relevant permission context without obvious fluff, though the structure could more clearly separate purpose from parameter guidance.

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 six-parameter delegation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not document most parameters, does not distinguish sibling delegation tools, and does not explain return behavior or sync/async semantics.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only implies values for tool_policy. It does not explain model, workspace, reasoning_effort, turn_timeout_seconds, or how prompt is used, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 says 'Delegate to Antigravity,' which gives a verb and target but does not explain what Antigravity is or how this differs from sibling tools like ask_agent or ask_codex. Purpose is minimally understandable but vague because the target resource is opaque.

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?

It provides clear guidance for choosing between read_only and workspace_write when file edits are needed. However, it gives no guidance on when to use ask_antigravity versus ask_agent, ask_codex, or the task-based siblings, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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