agy_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the 'read-only mode' statement is partly redundant. However, the description adds genuine context annotations do not carry: the specific probe endpoint (`/api/ps`), that the response includes a telemetry footer, and the shape of the report. It stops short of noting that `refresh_models` makes the call slow, which is the main behavioral gotcha.

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?

Front-loads the resource list, then uses labeled WHEN TO USE / DO NOT USE FOR / RETURNS blocks, so structure is easy to scan. The capability sentence is long and dense with parenthetical detail, but every clause maps to a distinct probed subsystem rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned JSON keys (`agy_process_queue`, `local_gpu_queue`, `local_gpu_probe`, `local_gpu_telemetry`, `model_quotas`, `sessions`). Combined with the exclusions, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter `refresh_models` is documented in the schema with its default and the `agy models` probe side effect. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') plus an enumerated set of concrete resources: system health, Gemini quota windows, Local GPU VRAM via `/api/ps`, process queue, session context, and Git worktree pre-flight. An agent can distinguish this diagnostic tool from siblings like `agy_configure_workspace` or `local_exec_and_triage` 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?

Contains explicit WHEN TO USE ('checking whether the Local GPU worker or Gemini Argon/Flash tiers are online and inspecting token savings') and DO NOT USE FOR ('Modifying workspace settings or attaching the IDE') with a named alternative (`agy_configure_workspace`). Both the positive trigger and the exclusion route the agent unambiguously.

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