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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral scope by stating exactly what is inspected: CLI version, available models, and the presence of the default model. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence with the action and checked resources front-loaded. It contains no filler, tautology, or unnecessary background.

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, read-only status tool with supporting annotations, the description names all relevant checks and is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap given the low invocation complexity.

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 and the schema contains an empty properties object, so there is no parameter detail to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the status check reports rather than inputs.

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 ('检查') and concrete resources: AGY CLI version, available models, and whether the default model gemini-3.8-flash-high exists. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling task-management tools like delegate_to_gemini or cancel_gemini_task.

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?

Usage is implied from the tool's nature as a status/health-check command, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No comparable status-checking sibling is named, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, matching the terminate semantics. The description adds useful context by scoping cancellation to tasks 'still running in the current MCP process', which clarifies that tasks in other processes or already-completed tasks are not affected. It does not describe side effects like partial work loss, but the destructive annotation covers the core safety signal.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates scope, target resource, and the action.

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 simple one-parameter cancellation tool, the description, combined with destructiveHint and the 'current MCP process' scoping, is mostly complete. The main gap is not stating that job_id should come from a starting/delegating tool, but this is inferable from siblings and not critical for invoking the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions job_id or explains where it comes from. The parameter name and UUID format are self-explanatory to some degree, so the tool is callable, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 '终止' (terminate) with a clear resource: Gemini/Teamwork background tasks still running in the current MCP process. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_gemini_task and get_gemini_task, which have different actions.

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 '仍在运行' implies the tool should be used for running tasks, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_gemini_task for finding the job_id, and no note about what to do if the task is already finished.

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

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

注释已声明 destructiveHint=true，描述没有矛盾。描述额外揭示了调用会等待结果、会保留并补充 prompt、启用斜杠命令展开等行为，这些超出了注释本身能提供的信息。只是没有明确说明可能产生的破坏性副作用，但已有 destructiveHint 覆盖。

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?

描述仅三句话，第一句直接说明工具作用和默认模型，第二句说明 prompt 处理和斜杠命令，第三句给出等待语义和与兄弟工具的区分。信息密度高且没有冗余。

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?

对于一个有 14 个参数、无输出 schema 的复杂工具，描述涵盖了核心调用语义、参数补充规则、超时建议和备选工具。虽然没有明确返回值，但 schema 也完全没有输出定义。基本足够，但可以再补充说明返回结果的结构。

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?

schema 覆盖率为 100%，每个参数都有描述。描述对 prompt 参数特别补充了'保留开头的系统斜杠指令并在末尾补充绝对工作目录'的行为，并给出具体示例，这对 agent 构造正确调用至关重要。working_directory 和 permission_mode 的描述也提供了 schema 之外的调用上下文。

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?

描述明确说明通过 Antigravity CLI 调用 Gemini，并指出默认模型，还点名了与 start_gemini_task 的区别（等待结果 vs 后台任务）。资源、动作和范围都清晰，能与同级工具区分。

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?

描述明确指出预计超过数分钟的 Teamwork 任务应使用 start_gemini_task，timeout_seconds 参数也补充了长任务应提高值或使用后台任务工具。这提供了明确的替代工具路由和适用场景。

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

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

The description discloses meaningful mechanics—closing the stdin pipe and waiting for graceful convergence—beyond what the annotations state. Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, and the description aligns with those traits. It does not cover failure or timeout behavior, but that is a minor 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?

One dense sentence conveys action, condition, mechanism, and outcome with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains easy to parse.

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 single-parameter tool with strong schema coverage and supporting annotations, the description is largely complete. The only notable omission is what happens if the task fails to converge or times out, along with any return-value expectations, but neither is critical for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single job_id parameter with a precise description, so the tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 names a specific operation—proactively ending a running stream-mode task—and states the goal of graceful convergence into the success terminal state. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling cancel_gemini_task, which implies abrupt termination.

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 gives a clear precondition: use it on running tasks that are in stream mode. This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with cancel_gemini_task, so a full exclusion is missing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns status and final result, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose potential error states, whether the task must be completed, or any behavior around unfinished tasks.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, the resource, and the parameter without redundant phrasing.

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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It names the high-level return content (status and final result), though it lacks output shape details and relationship to sibling tools. These are minor gaps given the low complexity and available annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter job_id is self-explanatory and is further constrained by uuid format and pattern. The description confirms job_id is the lookup key, yet it doesn't explain where the id comes from or what values are valid beyond the schema pattern, so compensation for missing schema descriptions is partial.

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 (查询/query), a resource (后台 Gemini/Teamwork 任务状态和最终结果), and the key parameter (job_id). It is clear and distinct from mutation siblings like start_gemini_task and cancel_gemini_task, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate 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 description implies usage when you need the status or final result of a Gemini task by job_id, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling to choose instead. It doesn't mention that job_id would come from start_gemini_task or delegate_to_gemini.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it injects input into a running stream and, when end_session is set, closes the input stream after the current turn to trigger a graceful success terminal state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and then adds the optional end-session behavior. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 definition covers the target state (running long-session, stream mode), the action (inject input), and the optional termination semantics. Annotations handle the safety profile and the schema covers parameters, so the main missing piece is return-value or failure behavior, which is not critical for invoking this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mirrors the input and end_session semantics but adds no new format, constraints, or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description names a specific verb-resource pair: inject interactive instructions/human input into a running long-session sub-agent, with special emphasis on stream-mode tasks. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: for running long-session sub-agents, especially those in stream mode. It does not list exclusions or mention alternatives like finish_gemini_task or cancel_gemini_task, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the stated context is specific and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that the tool opens a browser window as a side effect and that the dashboard shows real-time data. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set user expectations, though it does not address possible failures or return behavior.

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 main action and purpose. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema information.

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 is simple, has no required parameters, and annotations cover its read-only, non-destructive nature. The description adequately explains what the dashboard shows and that it opens in the default browser, though it does not mention what the tool returns after opening, which would be slightly more complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single auto_open parameter already includes a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific detail, but the schema carries the semantic weight, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (open), a clear resource (standalone visualization dashboard / Web UI), and its purpose (real-time display of subagent workflows, action streams, and physical logs). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling task-management tools like start_gemini_task or cancel_gemini_task.

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 implies usage context: an agent would call this when the user wants to visually monitor subagent activity. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, and it names no sibling tools as alternatives.

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

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

标注已声明 readOnlyHint=false、destructiveHint=true，描述没有与标注矛盾。描述补充了标注之外的有用行为信息：任务依赖 MCP 进程存活、异步返回 job_id 的工作流。但鉴于标注已标记破坏性操作，描述并未就破坏性影响、权限需求或安全性提供额外语境，对高破坏性的工具来说披露不够充分。

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?

仅两句描述，核心异步语义前置，随后的进程依赖警告和查询指引都是必要信息，无冗余。结构与篇幅对该工具恰到好处。

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?

工具复杂度高（14 参数、4 个枚举、无输出 schema），描述虽交代了异步工作流（返回 job_id、用 get_gemini_task 查询）和进程依赖，但未说明返回值结构或其他操作细节。由于无输出 schema，描述本应承担更多返回信息说明职责；params 已由 schema 100% 覆盖，整体基本够用但偏薄。

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?

Schema 描述覆盖率达 100%，所有 14 个参数（含 prompt 的斜杠指令与工作目录示例、permission_mode 的 headless 说明、timeout 的 teamwork 建议）均已由 schema 文档化。描述本身未添加参数级信息，仅提及返回 job_id。在高覆盖场景下取基线 3 分，schema 已承担主要说明职责。

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?

描述明确表述了具体动词（后台启动）、资源（Antigravity/Gemini 任务）和模式（立即返回 job_id 的异步行为），并指出适用于 /teamwork-preview 等长任务。通过'后台'和'立即返回 job_id'的表述与 get_gemini_task（查询）以及 delegate_to_gemini（很可能为同步）等兄弟工具清晰区分。虽然未显式点名 delegate_to_gemini，但异步语义本身已足够区分。

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?

描述给出了明确的使用场景——'适合 /teamwork-preview 等长任务'，并指出后续用 get_gemini_task 查询，还警示后台任务依赖 MCP 服务进程保持运行，这是重要的使用前提。但未明确说明何时不该使用（如短任务或需要交互的场景），也未点名 delegate_to_gemini 作为同步替代方案，缺少明确的排除性指引。

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