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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the data returned and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects.

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 with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to specifying the returned data.

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 simple zero-parameter status getter with no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and is largely sufficient. It could be strengthened by noting the read-only nature of the call, but the core informational need is met.

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 there is no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not waste words on nonexistent inputs.

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 ('döndürür' – returns) and enumerates the exact information returned: PID, multi-instance leadership (Leader/Standby), and lock status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_quota_status and reinject_badge by resource, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results come from the local language_server and are 'canlı' (live), but it says nothing about what happens when the server is not running, whether the call is read-only, latency/rate-limit expectations, or the shape of the returned quota data (for example 5-hour vs weekly windows). It also omits the cache-clearing side effect that force_refresh causes, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the source (local language_server) and the queried data without filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-optional-parameter read tool, losing a point only because the parenthetical provider list is somewhat compressed and unexplained.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate more than it does: it never says what the response contains beyond listing providers, nor how quota windows are represented. For a simple read-only status query it is adequate, but an agent still cannot predict failure modes or return structure.

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%, so both include_raw and force_refresh are already documented in the input schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only that data is live, and it does not explain how include_raw or force_refresh alter the returned quota figures beyond what the schema states.

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 (sorgular = queries) and a specific resource (live AI model quota and usage status), and it enumerates the covered providers (Gemini 5h/weekly, Claude/GPT, Argon). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from status-oriented siblings like get_instance_status or reinject_badge, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 purpose implies when the tool is relevant (checking remaining model quota/usage), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to the sibling tools. An agent can infer the trigger from the name and description alone, which is the definition of minimum-viable guidance.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that the action mutates the host application's UI ('üst menü çubuğuna ... enjekte eder'), which is useful, but it never states side effects, required permissions, what happens if a badge already exists (left to the schema's 'force' field), or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action and target stated immediately. The parenthetical gloss of 'rozet' is mildly redundant but helpful for a non-obvious term, so there is little waste.

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 required params, no output schema, no annotations) and the description conveys the core action. However, for a UI-mutating operation with no structured safety metadata, the absence of preconditions and expected outcomes leaves a meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'force' parameter is already explained in the schema ('Zaten rozet varsa bile zorla yeniden kurar'). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and object in Turkish: re-injecting and refreshing the live quota badge ('canlı kota göstergesi (rozetini)') in the top menu bar of the Antigravity Desktop window. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the read-only siblings get_quota_status and get_instance_status, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 only implied by the word 'yeniden' (again) and 'tazeler' (refreshes) – one can infer the tool is for repairing a missing or stale badge. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus get_quota_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions (for example, whether the desktop app must be running).

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