antigravity_gui_task_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does make two non-obvious disclosures: "owned" implies an ownership/authorization precondition on the task, and it explicitly warns that ready_for_review means the turn ended rather than that code or tests passed. It says nothing about behavior for a missing/foreign task id, or whether the read blocks.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the semantic caveat is front-loaded right after the action statement. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing written is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the ready_for_review note usefully disambiguates an output value. However, with no annotations, two fully undocumented required parameters, and no differentiation from near-identical status siblings, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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?

Both parameters (task_id, workspace_path) are required with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning and it explains neither. "Owned" hints that task_id must belong to the calling workspace, but the format and relationship between task_id and workspace_path are never stated.

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?

"Read the owned GUI task" gives a verb (read) and a resource (GUI task), so the general purpose is inferable. But the sibling set contains antigravity_gui_status and codex_gui_status, and the description never explains how a per-task status read differs from those. The agent is left to guess from the parameter names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus antigravity_gui_status, codex_gui_status, or codex_gravity_completion_status, and no note on whether it is meant to be polled or called once. The only guidance is interpretive (what ready_for_review means), not situational.

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