List project AGY session events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful contextual behavior beyond annotations by emphasizing 'persisted' events, 'without calling a model,' and one-project scoping, giving the agent a clearer picture of what the operation actually accesses.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase adds useful information: 'recent persisted,' 'AGY delegation and conversation events,' 'for one project,' and 'without calling a model.'

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, rich annotations, and clear input schema, the description is nearly complete. It does not describe the exact shape of returned events or pagination behavior, but for a list-style read tool without an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and side-effect profile.

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 50%: project_root has a clear schema description, while limit relies only on its numeric constraints and default. The description's word 'recent' connects conceptually to limit, but it does not explain parameter semantics in any detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('recent persisted AGY delegation and conversation events'), and a clear scope ('for one project'). The qualifier 'without calling a model' helps distinguish it from model-invoking sibling tools like antigravity_ask or antigravity_start_session.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need recent persisted session events for a project without incurring a model call. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, such as when the active session is needed (antigravity_get_active_session) or a full transcript is required (antigravity_get_transcript).

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