Analyze images and PDFs with Antigravity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' simply restates structured data and earns no credit. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that: nothing about how multiple filePaths are handled (one question across all files?), whether partial results are common, or what the model default is when 'model' is omitted.

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, purpose front-loaded, no padding. The trailing 'Read-only' clause is the one line that does not earn its place because it duplicates the annotation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and an annotation-declared safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Gaps are secondary: how multiple files are combined and how the 'model' parameter interacts with the default.

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 every parameter including model, prompt, filePaths, and timeoutSec is already documented with examples and constraints. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 the correct ceiling.

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 specific verb+resource pair: read images, screenshots or PDFs and answer a question about them. An agent can tell it is a media Q&A tool rather than a shell, search, or model-listing tool. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the resource types rather than stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite five siblings in the same family. The only implied condition is 'you have an image or PDF and a question', which is restated from the purpose rather than guidance for choosing this tool.

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