Brainstorm 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' merely repeats structured data. The one genuinely additive detail is that the tool both generates ideas and selects the most promising ones – a two-phase behavior not visible in annotations. It still omits what the selection criteria are and what the returned result looks like, so it goes modestly beyond the annotations rather than deeply.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the safety note. Every clause contributes something an agent can use.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what comes back – and it says only that promising ideas are 'picked', without format, count, or ranking detail. For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, that leaves a real gap. Parameters and safety are otherwise adequately covered, so it is not a severe failure, but it is incomplete.

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 (ideas, model, topic, method, context, timeoutSec) is already documented in the schema, including the method enum values and the default of 8 ideas. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that baseline. A 3 is the correct floor when the schema does all the work.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: generate ideas on a topic using a chosen method, then pick the most promising ones. That two-stage purpose is clear enough to distinguish it from a plain chat tool. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like the base `antigravity` tool, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. 'Read-only' hints at the safety profile but says nothing about when brainstorming is the right tool versus `antigravity` or `antigravity_web_search`. The schema does point at `antigravity_models` for model ids, but the description itself carries no routing advice.

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