doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them without contradiction. The description adds modest context by naming exactly what is checked (CLI, worker state, defaults), but it does not disclose output shape, side-effect-free behavior beyond the annotations, or any runtime implications.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose in under a dozen words. Every part of it earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 diagnostic tool, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and invocation. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., status report, list of problems, config values), which leaves some ambiguity for an agent attempting to use the result.

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 stolen, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, earning the baseline of 4 for parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resources involved—Antigravity CLI, global worker state, and configured defaults—so it is not a tautology. It is somewhat broad and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but it is specific enough to convey the diagnostic scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runs, get_run, or cancel_run. There is no mention of troubleshooting scenarios, preconditions, or cases where another tool should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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