Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• agy_list_sessionsA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a list and specifies the returned data (status, workspace, worktree path), which is transparent for a read-only tool, though it does not explicitly mention side effects or limitations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', no filler words, and efficiently conveys scope and output.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains the purpose and return fields. It does not over-explain but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, but it clarifies the scope of the listing (both ask and execute).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'known agy sessions', explicitly including 'both ask and execute'. It also enumerates the returned fields (status, workspace, worktree path), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like agy_ask, agy_execute, and agy_close_session.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation, implying use when sessions need to be inspected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious.

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

• agy_executeA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  The description discloses critical behaviors: full file-write permissions, isolated git worktree (never the real working tree), the prerequisite of AGY_MCP_ALLOW_EXECUTE=1, and the caveat that conversation adoption only works for CLI conversations, not Antigravity IDE ones. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is five sentences long, but each sentence contributes distinct and necessary information: purpose, worktree isolation, session modes, adoption caveat, and environment requirement. It is appropriately sized given the tool's complexity, though not as concise as a two-sentence summary.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite thorough, covering operation, isolation, session lifecycle, and prerequisites. The main gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns (e.g., session ID or worktree path), which would be valuable for the agent to know.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, but the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that session_id continues in an existing worktree, conversation_id adopts an existing conversation into a fresh worktree, and notes that conversation_id is ignored if session_id is set. It doesn't add extra semantics for plan or workspace, so the added value is partial.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the purpose: 'Hand a plan/sprint to agy (Antigravity CLI) to execute with full file-write permissions.' It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (agy CLI), and the worktree isolation detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_ask, agy_list_sessions, and agy_close_session.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: pass a plan to execute, and explains how to continue a session with session_id, start fresh, or adopt a CLI conversation with conversation_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like agy_ask, relying on the file-write permission to imply the distinction.

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

• agy_askA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the --mode plan limitation, inability to edit files, session continuation semantics, and the critical constraint that conversation_id only works for CLI conversations, not IDE ones. This is thorough and trustworthy.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, safety/read-only, and parameter usage. Front-loaded and no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and parameter interplay adequately. It doesn't describe return format, but for a chat tool that's acceptable and not a critical gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions, but the tool description adds relational semantics: session_id continues context, omitting starts new, conversation_id adopts external CLI sessions, and conversation_id is ignored when session_id is present. This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('agy (Antigravity CLI)'), clearly distinguishing this as the question/consultation tool. It explicitly notes read-only behavior, which sets it apart from the sibling execute tool.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides clear guidance on when to use session_id versus conversation_id, and when to omit them. The read-only caveat implies use for questions rather than actions, but it doesn't explicitly name agy_execute as the alternative for modifications.

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

• agy_close_sessionA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly mentions that the default keeps the worktree for manual review and that remove_worktree=true is irreversible and discards uncommitted changes, which is critical for an agent to avoid data loss.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is clearly structured without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: default behavior, destructive option, and irreversibility. No missing context that would impede correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It explains the effect of remove_worktree and its default, while session_id is implicitly required and self-evident from the tool's purpose.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Close a session.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and naturally differentiates from siblings like agy_list_sessions, agy_ask, and agy_execute by focusing on the closing action.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how to choose the parameter: it explains the default behavior (marks closed, leaves worktree) and instructs when to pass remove_worktree=true for deletion. This effectively covers both usage and alternatives.

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