antigravity_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Diagnose' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, side effects, or whether it performs network calls. It also does not mention what happens if the CLI is unhealthy or if storage metrics are unavailable. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with behavioral risk.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Diagnose'. Every part of the sentence adds meaning, listing the four diagnostic dimensions. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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 (0 params), but there is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining what the agent will receive. It does not mention return format, whether it returns a success/failure status, metrics, or logs. It also doesn't clarify prerequisite conditions (e.g., CLI must be installed). For a diagnostic tool, the output is critical, so the description is incomplete on that front, though the rest is adequate for a zero-parameter 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The description lists the diagnostic areas, which is all that is needed. Baseline 4 for 0 parameters 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 names a specific verb ('Diagnose') and a clear resource ('Antigravity CLI health, authentication token status, YOLO permission mode, and storage metrics'). It is immediately distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on running commands, jobs, sessions, transcripts, and models. An agent can tell this is the health/diagnostic tool without opening any schema.

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: it is the diagnostic tool among siblings. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'use antigravity_sessions for session info, antigravity_doctor for health'). No exclusions or preferred scenarios are stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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