runner_probe

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a concrete side effect ('Status may reinstall the bundled entry point'), a safety guarantee ('never executes arbitrary commands'), a fixed duration ('ten-second'), and an explicit non-effect ('Does not stop the instance'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a state-touching diagnostic that readOnlyHint=false only hints at.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded before the caveats. Efficient and readable, though the side-effect sentence could be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers safety, duration, and a state-changing side effect, which are the key agent concerns; remaining gaps are the undocumented projectId/locale parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains requestId reuse semantics (valuable, beyond the schema) and the two actions, but says nothing about projectId or the locale enum, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 pair (start/query) and resource (ten-second detached survival diagnostic) with clear scope (bound Available Codespace). 'Survival diagnostic' is somewhat jargon-heavy, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like environment_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Adds a real usage tip ('Reuse requestId after disconnect') and a boundary ('Does not stop the instance'), which is useful context. However, it never states when to choose this over environment_check or codespace_prepare, so the when/when-not guidance is only implied.

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