antigravity_job

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that 'forget' cleans up jobs, but it does not clarify whether this cancels a running job, only removes its record, or whether the action is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation-capable 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verbs and names the resource. It is efficient and readable, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the operations from their requirements.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this description leaves real gaps: action-specific parameter requirements, the semantics and side effects of 'forget', and what 'get' returns are not covered. An agent can select the tool but may not invoke it correctly in all cases.

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 description's three verbs roughly map to the action enum values, and job_id is already documented in the schema as the id returned by antigravity_submit. However, the description does not clarify that job_id is effectively required for get/forget, nor does it explain the behavior of the default action.

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 specifies a concrete set of operations—查询/列出/清理 (get/list/forget)—against a named resource: background jobs started by antigravity_submit. This clearly distinguishes it from antigravity_submit itself, though it does not fully differentiate it from antigravity_status.

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 '由 antigravity_submit 启动的后台作业' implies this is the follow-up management tool for jobs created by antigravity_submit, giving some contextual clue. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over antigravity_status or when not to use it.

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