Read observed token usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: resumed task counters are session deltas rather than cumulative totals, missing counters remain null, and partial/unavailable usage should be surfaced to the user.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats. Each sentence carries information, though the phrasing is somewhat telegraphic in the opening clause.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers delta semantics, null handling, and scope boundaries. For a read-only, zero-required-param tool this is largely complete, missing only explicit alternative routing.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter meaning. The description partially compensates by naming the three filter dimensions (task, session, requested model), which map to taskId, sessionId and model, but gives no format or exclusivity guidance.

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?

States a specific verb (consolidate) and resource (CLI token usage) scoped by task, session and model. It distinguishes itself by clarifying it is not account quota or billing, though it does not name a sibling alternative directly.

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 clarifies the boundary ('does not report account quota or billing') which is useful when-not guidance, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like antigravity_status or antigravity_result. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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