Check Antigravity CLI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses the quota-free nature of the call and that the check actually attempts to start the agy binary, which is more than a trivial network ping.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the quota note. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 zero-required-param health check with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the cost profile. It omits any indication of what a pass/fail response looks like, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the lone 'message' parameter is documented there as text to echo back. The description does not mention this parameter or reconcile it with the health-check purpose, so it adds nothing over the schema — baseline 3.

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 and target: verifies the server is up and the agy binary can be started. This is a health-check distinct from all siblings (search, shell, brainstorm, models), so an agent can select it without inspecting the schema.

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 (connectivity/preflight check) and 'Does not use any quota' hints it is safe to call freely, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison to sibling tools that might also report server health.

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