delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: agy has full tool access (shell, file reads, web) within the given cwd, so an agent knows this can mutate files and execute commands. However, it says nothing about blocking behavior, timeouts, cost, permissions, or whether shell execution is sandboxed — significant gaps for an unrestricted delegation tool.

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, no filler, with the core identity and the risk-relevant capability disclosure front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 powerful, unannotated delegation tool with no output schema, the description omits what comes back (raw text, transcript, artifacts), whether the call blocks until completion, and any timeout or cost ceiling. The capability disclosure is useful but the operational picture is incomplete.

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 cwd, model, and prompt are already documented in the schema, including the advice to normally omit model. The description only reinforces cwd scoping ('in the given cwd') and adds no format or content guidance for prompt beyond 'complete task prompt.' Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: raw delegation to the Antigravity CLI (agy), scoped to 'heavy tasks that don't fit the other tools.' The agent can tell this is a general-purpose escape hatch, though it never names which sibling (deep_search, analyze_files) it replaces in a given situation.

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?

Offers a loose exclusion criterion ('tasks that don't fit the other tools') but no positive selection criteria and no named alternatives or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out, leaving the agent to guess when delegation beats a dedicated sibling tool.

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