agy bridge diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool spends no AI Pro quota and performs a best-effort GitHub check honoring an environment variable. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though the key safety signals are already covered by 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and quota-free nature. It then lists checks in a readable paragraph. While efficient, the list could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains clear and concise without unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (not detailed here but present), the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It explains all diagnostics and their purpose, leaving no gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds semantic meaning by listing the specific diagnostics performed (version, PATH, directories, transcript, SQLite store). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful context for interpreting results.

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 the tool reports diagnostics for the agy bridge setup, with a specific verb 'Report diagnostics' and a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like antigravity_ask and antigravity_continue by focusing on diagnostics rather than conversation or image generation.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use: 'Use this to debug empty or failed responses — or to see if the bridge itself is out of date — before spending quota.' This clarifies it is for debugging before invoking other tools, and mentions it spends no quota, helping the agent decide between this and potentially costly sibling tools.

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