Delegate a new analysis to Antigravity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' aligns with that. The description adds that the conversation is 'persisted as active,' which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it adds useful context about the tool's side effect (persisting active state) despite being read-only.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraint ('read-only', 'enabled project', 'persist as active'). No wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotations. The description covers the core purpose but doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'persist as active' in terms of session lifecycle. Given the complexity (starting a conversation with many options), the description is somewhat thin but not critically incomplete because the schema covers some parameters and annotations cover safety.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'project_root' and 'prompt' implicitly but doesn't explain any parameters explicitly. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the two required params, and the optional params (model, effort, timeout_seconds, max_response_chars) are not described in the tool description. Given low coverage, a 3 is appropriate because it doesn't fully compensate but does at least imply the key inputs.

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 the action ('Start a new read-only AGY analysis conversation') and the resource ('for an enabled project'), and it distinguishes from siblings by noting it persists the conversation as active. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with antigravity_start_session, which could be a close sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context ('for an enabled project') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like antigravity_start_session or antigravity_continue. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it's adequate but not fully guiding.

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