Delegate to Antigravity

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It clarifies that it drives the UI (not internals) and requires installation/login. However, it does not mention error behaviors, timeouts, or whether the operation is safe/idempotent. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a short requirement statement. No filler, every sentence adds essential information.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and one sibling, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's function, prerequisites, and how it differs from the sibling. However, it does not specify the format of the reply (e.g., plain text, JSON), which would be helpful.

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 description adds marginal value beyond the schema. The main description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what is in the schema. 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 clearly states it sends a task to the Antigravity app and returns the reply. It specifies it drives the UI (types into chat box, reads response), distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_antigravity_quota, which only checks quota.

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 explains when to use the tool (to send a task) and mentions prerequisites (app installed and signed in). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the sibling tool context and the model parameter's reference to getAntigravityQuota() provide adequate guidance.

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