List Antigravity models

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add extra behavior. It adds that no model turn is started and that the Antigravity service may be contacted, which is useful context for side-effect expectations.

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, front-loaded and free of filler. Every phrase adds meaning, including the clarification that the call may contact the service.

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?

Complete for a no-argument read-only list tool: purpose, outcome, service contact, and non-turn behavior are all stated, and annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the description already says what will be returned (model slugs and display names).

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?

With an empty schema, there are no parameter semantics to document; 100% schema coverage means the description is not required to compensate. The description adds no parameter text, but none is needed.

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 action ('List') and resource ('available model slugs and display names'), and explicitly notes it does not start a model turn, distinguishing it from the sibling run/continue tools. The mechanism phrase 'using agy models' is slightly cryptic but does not harm purpose.

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?

Implied usage is clear for a zero-parameter listing tool, but it never directly says 'use this to inspect available models before running/continuing' or names any alternative. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present, so the agent must infer selection from the title and siblings.

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