agy_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only retrieval ('Get') and discloses the exact return format including version and path. It doesn't mention side effects, errors, or prerequisites, but for a version-check tool this is mostly sufficient.

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 minimal and effective: one clear sentence plus a compact return-format block. It is front-loaded, uses a clear markdown header, and contains no filler.

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?

The core purpose and return format are covered, and an output schema exists. However, the 'ctx' parameter remains unexplained, and there is no explicit statement that no arguments are required. This is a clear gap, though the tool is simple enough that the impact is moderate.

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 schema has one parameter 'ctx' with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain it at all. It also fails to state that the tool can be called with no arguments. The impact is reduced because the parameter is optional with a default of null, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 'Get the installed Antigravity CLI version', which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (installed CLI version). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that handle skills, config, and providers.

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 purpose is unambiguous, and no sibling tool performs this function, so the usage context is clear without needing explicit exclusions. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need the CLI version', but the description strongly implies it.

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