get_antigravity_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is an alias, saying nothing about whether the call is read-only, what the response contains, or whether there are side effects. The name 'status' weakly implies a read operation, but that is not stated.

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 sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying that it is an alias. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity leaves behavioral and contextual gaps.

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?

With no annotations and a large sibling set, the description should at least clarify that Antigravity and Opencode are equivalent and which name is canonical. It leaves the relationship implicit and gives no guidance about when to use this alias versus get_opencode_status. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the alias context is still insufficiently explained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 says only 'Alias for get_opencode_status,' which points to another tool rather than stating the function directly. It is clear only if the agent already understands get_opencode_status, and it does distinguish this tool from siblings by naming the canonical tool, but it never explains what the status operation actually does.

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 alias statement implies that get_antigravity_status should be used in the same circumstances as get_opencode_status, providing indirect usage guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reason for choosing one name over the other.

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