打开 Antigravity 子代理实时可视化看板

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.