Copilot bridge diagnostics

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the tool's best-effort nature: the GitHub check 'honors AGY_BRIDGE_NO_UPDATE_CHECK' and auth detection is 'best-effort' with specific caveats. It also notes that the update notice is the same as antigravity_status. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear summary sentence, then bullet-points the diagnostics items without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has no input parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary behavioral context: what diagnostics are reported, edge cases (best-effort checks), and the intended debug use case. It is fully complete for the agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no additional parameter information.

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 tool's purpose: 'Report diagnostics for the Copilot bridge setup.' It details the specific items checked (version, update, PATH, auth, session state) and explicitly says to use it for debugging 'copilot not found' or auth errors. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like antigravity_status by focusing on Copilot-specific diagnostics.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to debug "copilot not found" or auth errors before a call.' It also explains that the update notice matches antigravity_status, implying when to choose this over that. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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