antigravity_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb '列出' (list) implies a read-only operation and the account-scoping qualifier is useful context, but nothing is disclosed about the response shape, behavior when no models are available, or possible dependency on external calls.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys verb, resource, and scope with zero filler. 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 zero-parameter, low-complexity list tool, the description covers the core call semantics, but with no output schema present it gives no indication of what the returned model list will look like. There is also no broader context hinting at how the result feeds into sibling tools such as antigravity_submit, leaving the agent to infer return structure.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate. With 0 parameters the baseline is 4, and the description correctly stays silent on parameter details since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb (列出/list) plus a specific resource (Antigravity models) and a scope qualifier (available to the current agy account), making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list-style tools antigravity_agents and antigravity_sessions, but the resource type is distinct enough that an agent can generally tell them apart.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling tools. The description states only what the tool does, not when it should be used, and never names alternatives or conditions that would route an agent to antigravity_agents or antigravity_sessions instead.

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