agy_get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what the tool checks (availability, responsiveness, status), but it doesn't disclose details such as whether the check has side effects, what the exit behavior is, whether it may hang or time out, or potential failure modes. For a no-parameter status tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, compact sentence that clearly conveys the tool's function. No extraneous information is included, and the key aspects (availability, responsiveness, status) are all mentioned.

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 is a zero-parameter status check with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, and the lack of parameters removes potential ambiguity. A slight gap is that it doesn't mention how the status is returned or what the output format is, but for a simple health check this is acceptable.

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 provides no parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to compensate, as there is nothing to document. This is a simple status check with no inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check availability, responsiveness, and current status of the Antigravity CLI (agy). It names a specific resource and verb (check status), which is clear and distinguishable from the sibling tools listed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings beyond the general 'status check' scope.

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?

There are no explicit usage guidelines or when-to-use instructions. The description implies the tool is for health/status checks, and the zero-parameter schema suggests it's a simple check, but it doesn't state when to prefer this over alternatives or what conditions warrant using it. As a status-check tool, its usage is fairly obvious, but no explicit guidance is given.

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