Check Antigravity bridge

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool does not enable a project or consume a model turn, reinforcing the read-only and idempotent behavior. It does not fully describe the output shape, but the annotations already establish the safety profile, and the description makes the non-mutating intent clear.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place, especially the side-effect qualifier 'without enabling a project or consuming a model turn.'

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 parameterless health-check tool with read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the necessary behavioral guarantees and expected scope. It is fully usable by an agent deciding to invoke this lightweight check instead of more expensive session or project operations.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents what can be passed. The description adds relevant context by explaining that this checks the configured agy binary and bridge version, which is helpful for understanding what the no-input tool actually inspects.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it checks the configured agy binary and bridge version. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing this as a health/diagnostic action rather than a session or run operation, and adds the constraint that it doesn't enable a project or consume a model turn.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when you need bridge health/version information and want to avoid side effects like enabling a project or consuming a turn. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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