list_models

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping results to the active Antigravity account and by revealing that configured routes are returned, which is not visible in the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence covering both the primary action and the secondary output without filler or redundancy. Every clause adds useful information.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing, the description covers the essential behavior and the key returned concepts: available models and route presets. It does not detail the exact return shape or explain route meanings, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The zero-parameter baseline applies and the description does not need to compensate.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: 'List models currently available to the active Antigravity account' plus the distinct output of configured quality, balanced, and fast routes. It is clearly about model availability rather than account details or teams, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 phrase 'currently available' implies this tool is for inspecting what models exist in the current account context, and the mention of routes suggests when route configuration is needed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives.

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