agy_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description adds real value with two behavioral guarantees: the output is non-secret (safe to surface in logs or to a user) and it does not touch CLI authentication state. The term 'execution gate' is left unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope limitation is attached directly to the positive claim, so both what it does and what it does not do arrive in one read.

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 zero-arg, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, secrecy, and scope boundary, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The residual gap is that 'execution gate' is undefined and the shape of the returned configuration is left entirely implicit.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter information is needed or missing.

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 and concrete resource set: reports configuration, version, and execution gate. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agy_status or agy_history, though it never names those siblings or explains how this differs from agy_status, which an agent may reasonably confuse it with.

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 a diagnostic/inspection call. The clause 'does not inspect CLI authentication' is a useful scope exclusion but functions as a limitation, not as guidance on when to call this versus agy_status, and no alternative is named.

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