gemini-doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists what is checked (installation, backend, version, readiness) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies anything, what output format to expect, or whether it requires any prerequisites. 'Diagnose and verify' strongly implies non-mutating, but this is left implicit.

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 sentence with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded, and every phrase adds a distinct diagnostic aspect: installation, backend, version, and readiness.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key dimensions an agent needs to understand its purpose. It does not state what the verification output looks like or how to interpret results, but the low complexity makes that a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Schema coverage is trivially complete, and the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 uses specific verbs ('diagnose', 'verify') and names exact resources: Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI (agy) installation, active backend, CLI version, and system readiness. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask-gemini or gemini-image, which are content-generation tools.

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 diagnostic scope clearly implies use when checking environment health or CLI readiness, which is distinct from the content-generation siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar checks.

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