Get active project AGY session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value by noting the operation does not call a model, implying no cost/latency and no side effects of generation — a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists; in fact, the description reinforces the read-only nature.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Return' followed by the resource and key qualifier ('without calling a model'). Every word earns its place, and the cost-behavior qualifier carries decision-relevant weight rather than being filler. Exemplary economy.

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 low-complexity getter with one string parameter (100% schema coverage), robust annotations, and a clear return value (an ID), the description is fully adequate. The return value is obvious from 'Return the active AGY conversation ID,' and no output schema or additional behavioral caveats are necessary. The combination of description, schema, and annotations fully specifies this tool.

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% — the single parameter 'project_root' is already well documented in the schema as the absolute root directory, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed given the schema's thoroughness for this simple path string parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('active AGY conversation ID for a project'), clearly scoping what is retrieved. The phrase 'without calling a model' differentiates it from siblings like antigravity_ask, antigravity_continue, and antigravity_execute, which would invoke model processing. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes well from the sibling toolset.

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 a use case — fetching a session ID cheaply without model invocation — which hints at when to prefer it over model-calling tools like ask/continue. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as antigravity_list_sessions or antigravity_start_session, despite their close relevance. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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