follow_up

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context — that the prior context lives on agy's side and need not be resent — but says nothing about what happens with an invalid or expired session_id, whether the call can trigger side effects, or how model/cwd overrides interact with the resumed session.

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, zero waste, and the operational constraint (context already on agy's side, nothing to resend) is front-loaded where the agent will act on it.

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 continuation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the definition covers the essential behavior — session continuity and no resend. Missing only edge-case behavior around invalid sessions, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a marginal gloss on session_id ('returned by every other tool'), leaving cwd and model entirely to the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Continue a previous Antigravity session by session_id' — and immediately scopes it to follow-up questions about a prior delegation, which cleanly separates it from delegate and the other siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('USE THIS for follow-up questions about a prior delegation') and explains why no payload resend is needed. It stops short of naming delegate as the alternative for new work or stating what to do when a session is missing/expired, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully closed.

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