agy_start

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

Discloses key behaviors: the call is asynchronous (returns immediately with run_id), print mode is agentic, and enabling dangerously_skip_permissions permits unattended commands and file edits. Good security context. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Front-loads the main purpose and immediately conveys key behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value beyond run_id, nor does it place the tool within the workflow suggested by siblings. Parameter details are missing.

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 0%. The description only explains one parameter (dangerously_skip_permissions). Other parameters (prompt, workspace, timeout_seconds, model, visible_terminal) remain undefined. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the verb 'Start' and resource 'asynchronous Antigravity conversation,' and mentions it returns a run_id. However, no title is provided, and it does not differentiate from siblings like agy_continue or agy_status.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., agy_continue, agy_goal_create). Only a warning about the dangerously_skip_permissions parameter, but no context on proper usage.

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