antigravity_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists available agents, but discloses nothing about output format, ordering, completeness, authentication requirements, or potential error conditions. For a read-style listing tool this is a minimal but notable gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource. It is well-structured for a simple tool, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the tool is low-complexity and the description is arguably adequate for the agent to understand its basic action. However, the absence of any return-format details and the unexplained 'agy 账号' reference leave moderate ambiguity about what the response will look like.

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 baseline 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters, and the schema already documents the empty input shape fully.

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 ('列出' / list) and a concrete resource ('可用的 agent' / available agents), making the tool's core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like antigravity_models and antigravity_jobs by the resource it targets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any sibling.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or context are provided. The phrase '当前 agy 账号' introduces an account scoping assumption but does not clarify how the agent is identified or when this tool should be preferred over related tools like antigravity_models.

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