antigravity_status

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

The description discloses that authentication isn't verified until task execution, a useful behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also surfaces the environmental dependency on the local CLI being discoverable. This gives an agent accurate expectations of success/failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no filler. The caveat about authentication is placed as a valuable second sentence.

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 status tool with a readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the main outcome (CLI presence and task list) and an important side effect (no auth verification). It could specify the return shape, but its simplicity makes that a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed with an empty schema; the behavioral description is sufficient.

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?

States a specific verb phrase 'Check whether the local Antigravity CLI can be found and list tasks held by this MCP process,' clearly distinguishing it from the task-execution siblings start/result/cancel. The resource and scope are precise. No ambiguity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The role of a status/health check is implied by the name and description, but the description does not say when to prefer this over antigravity_start/result/cancel. It does clarify that authentication happens only at task execution, which indirectly signals a safe pre-flight check, but no direct routing.

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