check-quota

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is live, that it covers remaining quota percentages, and that health status levels are Healthy / Low / Depleted. The phrase 'Retrieve and display' also implies a read-only behavior, which is adequate for a zero-parameter check tool.

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, no filler, with the core action and scope in the first sentence and the output categories in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 no-argument read-only quota checker with an output schema, this description is complete: it names the resource, the metric, the scope, and the status categories. There is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is little to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds useful scope context ('all Google Antigravity models') without needing to explain inputs.

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 action ('Retrieve and display') and a precise resource ('live remaining quota percentages for all Google Antigravity models'). It clearly separates this from siblings like list-models or ask-gemini by focusing on quota health rather than model names or model interaction.

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 intended use is clear: when an agent needs current quota status and health for Antigravity models. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the context is unambiguous and there are no prerequisites or competing workflows implied by the description.

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