Ask Antigravity

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the crucial disclosure that the default call may modify workspace files, with "plan" as the safe alternative. It also exposes statefulness (conversationId continues a prior run), a trait the annotations do not capture. Missing details on timeouts and what happens under sandbox keep it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety-relevant default and the override, then the state-continuation tip. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 10-parameter wrapper with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs to know before calling: that it can mutate the workspace and how to continue a conversation. It does not describe the shape of the returned answer or partial-output behavior on timeout, a minor gap given full schema coverage.

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%, so all ten parameters including the mode enum and conversationId are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces defaults and the continuation pattern, adding marginal meaning beyond structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: hand a task or question to the Antigravity CLI and return its answer. That is specific enough to distinguish it from antigravity_web_search or antigravity_shell, though it never explicitly frames itself as the general-purpose delegation tool relative to its specialized siblings.

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 real context for the mode parameter (default may edit files, use "plan" for a read-only answer) and for conversationId reuse, which is when-to-use guidance for a call pattern. It stops short of routing guidance against the siblings (e.g., use antigravity_web_search for lookups instead), so the agent must infer tool selection.

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