antigravity_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about what the tool reports, including a login probe and usage counters, but never states whether invocation is read-only, whether it can produce side effects, or what the login probe actually involves. That gap keeps it below a 4.

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?

One dense sentence packs the full report scope and a usage cue without filler. The long enumerative middle is slightly hard to scan, but every clause earns its place and the key troubleshooting guidance is placed at the end.

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?

The tool takes no inputs and the description lists the main report categories, so an agent can invoke it without risk and know broadly what to expect. Since there is no output schema, the description could be stronger on exact field names and formats, but for a zero-parameter diagnostic status tool this is sufficient.

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 the 100%-covered empty schema already fully documents the input surface. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description needs no additional parameter detail.

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 reporting verb and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: AGY path, CLI version, working directory, agent visibility, daily calls/tokens, timing statistics, and login probe. This inventory plus the troubleshooting cue makes its role as an overall diagnostic status tool unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like antigravity_job, antigravity_quota, or antigravity_submit.

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 closing phrase '排查故障先看它' ('look at it first when troubleshooting') is explicit guidance on when to use the tool. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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