antigravity_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers two meaningful traits: probeAuth performs a real call that 'may incur usage' (a cost/side-effect warning), and the explicit anti-pattern 'Never infer auth from config directories'. It still omits whether the inspection itself is read-only or what it returns, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the parameter cost caveat and the methodology warning in priority order.

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 one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the main behavioral risk. It could add whether the command is non-destructive and roughly what it reports, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does: probeAuth 'sends a small real prompt and may incur usage'. That conveys the semantics and the cost implication the bare boolean type could not. Minor gap: no mention of the default when omitted.

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 (Inspect) and resource (installed agent CLI/version/help), which is a diagnostic intent clearly distinct from the ask/delegate/review/status siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 implied (run this to inspect the installed CLI) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or named sibling for comparison. The probeAuth caveat gives conditional guidance for that parameter, not for choosing the tool.

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