agy_brain_health_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the substantive behavioral scope — exactly which anomaly classes are checked — but never states whether the tool is strictly read-only, whether it repairs anything it finds, or what the cost/scope of a scan is. The name implies diagnostics, but the safety profile is left to inference.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the detection list. There is no filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no params, the description should say what the agent gets back — a structured findings list, a pass/fail summary, remediation suggestions? It states what is checked but not what is returned, leaving a real gap for a report-producing 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the schema is empty and fully consistent with a parameterless report call.

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?

Specific verb ("Analyze") plus a concrete resource ("Antigravity brain storage health") and an enumeration of the fault classes it detects. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (sync, search, lineage, digest) because it is the only diagnostic one, though the description never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 is no statement of when to run this (e.g., before/after a sync, when sessions stall) and no named alternative. The mention of orphaned folders, BigInt crashes, and stalled sessions hints at troubleshooting, but the agent must infer the trigger condition itself.

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