agy_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'get' version/path and 'verifying runtime health', implying it is a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive. It also does not mention what it returns (e.g., format, structure) or error behavior. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist), so no contradiction flag.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get the version and binary path') and then adds the secondary purpose. There is zero waste; every word contributes. It is concise yet complete for its simple scope.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and hints at the return value (version and binary path). It does not specify the exact format or error handling, but for a version check this is not critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to call it and interpret the basic result.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param details. It effectively communicates the tool's scope without mentioning parameters, which is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('version and binary path of the installed Google Antigravity (agy) CLI'), and adds a secondary purpose ('verifying runtime health'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_task or agy_chat, which perform different operations. The purpose is unambiguous and informative.

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 implies usage: it is for checking the CLI's version and binary path, and for verifying runtime health. This gives context on when to use it (e.g., diagnostics or environment checks). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the simplicity of the tool makes alternatives obvious. There is no exclusion guidance, but the implied use case is clear.

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