检查 Antigravity 子代理状态

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.