analyze_files

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: the files never enter the agent's context and only the answer returns. That is exactly the non-obvious fact an agent needs in order to decide between this and reading files directly. It leaves out secondary behavior such as latency/cost, authentication requirements for the external CLI, and what happens when a file path is invalid or too large.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action and mechanism first, the trigger conditions second, the payoff (context savings) last. The imperative 'USE THIS' is front-loaded where a scanning agent will catch it, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 four-parameter delegation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant essentials: what it does, when to reach for it, and that only a synthesized answer comes back. The remaining gap is what that answer looks like and how failures surface, which matters somewhat because there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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 explains cwd, files, model, and question thoroughly, and the description adds no syntax, format, or routing detail beyond it. The baseline of 3 applies; the one thing it could have added, guidance on when to override the model, is already deferred to the schema's 'Normally omit' note.

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 and resource ('Delegate file analysis') plus the mechanism ('Antigravity CLI (Gemini)'), and explicitly contrasts it with the default behavior ('instead of reading files yourself'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling tools like deep_search or web_lookup, which operate on the web rather than on local files.

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 gives concrete, actionable triggers — files over 200 lines, tasks spanning more than 3 files — and enumerates the shapes of work it suits (logs, database dumps, generated code, cross-file reviews, comparisons). What's missing is the inverse guidance: when NOT to use it (e.g., small files, single-file edits, cases where exact file contents must be quoted back), and no sibling tool is named as the alternative.

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