Check whether Codex CLI and Antigravity CLI binaries are installed and operational on the host, so you can confirm they are ready before delegating coding tasks.
Checks the operational status of Codex CLI and Antigravity CLI binaries on the host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 the tool checks status and is host-local, which implies a read-only inspection, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor what happens if a binary is missing. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is checked and where. It could slightly improve by hinting at failure behavior, but nothing critical is missing for a status-check tool.
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 and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter information; nothing more is needed here.
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 ('Checks'), a clear resource ('operational status of Codex CLI and Antigravity CLI binaries'), and a location ('on the host'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like codex_run, codex_review, and get_agent_skills, which perform different actions.
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 clearly implies the tool is for verifying the availability/operational state of the CLIs before running or reviewing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is reasonably inferable but not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.