agy bridge diagnostics

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent): it states it spends no AI Pro quota, is a best-effort GitHub check honoring AGY_BRIDGE_NO_UPDATE_CHECK, details how 0% quota per family is reported as a problem, and lists filesystem checks. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-organized paragraph with the main purpose front-loaded and usage guidance at the end. All details are relevant, though the long clauses and extensive list make it slightly less scannable than optimal.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description thoroughly covers all checks performed, including version-specific behavior, env-var handling, and edge cases like quota exhaustion. The usage guidance completes the picture, making it comprehensive for a no-parameter diagnostic 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, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (baseline 4). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed.

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 opens with 'Report diagnostics for the agy bridge setup', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from sibling status tools (codex_status, copilot_status) by explicitly targeting the agy bridge, and then details the specific checks performed.

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 final sentence provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to debug empty or failed responses — or to see if the bridge itself is out of date, or if you are simply out of quota — before spending quota.' This is clear, but it does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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