antigravity_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details such as whether the list is cached, whether it requires authentication, or what the response format looks like. The description is accurate but minimal.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the resource ('available models'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention what the output will look like (e.g., model IDs, names, metadata) or whether any filtering or pagination is available. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but the description could be slightly more informative.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description correctly indicates that the tool lists available models, which is sufficient for a no-parameter tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters to document.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available models supported by this Antigravity installation'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer its purpose among the sibling tools.

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 implies usage context: it is for listing available models, which is a discovery/read operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_antigravity or antigravity_sessions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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