colab_drive_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses output scope (yes/no plus free space, never file listings) and notes the browser-approval requirement in the mount flow. It does not explicitly state the call is read-only/side-effect free, though 'reports' implies it.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then output scope, then the routing hint. No filler.

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 explained, and the description still sketches them. The only gap is the undocumented optional 'session' parameter, which is minor for a zero-required-param status check.

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% for the single optional 'session' parameter, and the description never mentions it or explains how the target session is resolved (default null). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema 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 question the tool answers ('Is Google Drive mounted on this session?') and explicitly scopes the output ('yes/no and free space only, never lists your files'), which separates it from listing tools like colab_ls and from colab_drive_mount_start.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'If it is not mounted, use colab_drive_mount_start (the user approves in the browser).' Names the alternative and the condition that selects it, plus the user-approval prerequisite.

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