truth_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating operational read and lists the four status facets returned, which is meaningful context. It does not state whether the call is rate-limited, whether it requires elevated auth, or how to interpret degraded states (e.g. what a tripped circuit breaker implies for other truth_* calls).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the enumerated return facets arrive immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient because it names the returned fields in place of a schema. The remaining gap is interpretive: it does not explain what 'tier' or 'circuit breaker' values signify, nor how the optional project scoping changes the result, and with no annotations there is nothing else to fall back on.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single optional parameter (target_project), so the schema already documents its meaning. The description never mentions the project scoping behavior at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Get operational status') and a specific resource ('antigravity-truth-guard'), then enumerates what the status comprises: tier, RAM mirror count, circuit breaker, quota usage. That is far more concrete than a generic 'get status'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource name and read-only framing make it obviously distinct from truth_search/truth_upsert_rule/truth_verify_plan.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the health/diagnostics call, useful when checking whether the truth-guard subsystem is degraded or throttled. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance, and no mention of prerequisites or how frequently it should be polled.

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