Check remaining Antigravity quota for weekly and 5-hour model group windows. Directly queries the CLI without starting a turn or deducting quota.
查看 Antigravity 剩余额度（按模型组的周窗口与 5 小时窗口）。由 CLI 自身回答：不起 turn、不扣额度。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively reveals key traits: the CLI answers directly, no turn is started, and no quota is deducted. This goes beyond the tool name and gives the agent confidence that calling it is read-only and cost-free.
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 with no redundant text. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveats are compactly stated in one clause.
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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no nested schema) and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what it does and its side-effect profile. An agent can safely invoke it based on this information; no crucial operational detail seems 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 input schema has zero properties and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description adds useful semantic context about what dimensions are reported ('model group', 'weekly window', '5-hour window') even though no user-supplied parameters 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 '查看' and identifies the exact resource—Antigravity remaining quota—with granularity details ('按模型组的周窗口与 5 小时窗口'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like antigravity_ask or antigravity_submit, which concern model turns or submissions.
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 description states that the CLI itself answers and that the tool does not start a turn or deduct quota, telling an agent this is the safe, no-side-effect way to inspect quota before choosing another action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.