colab_notebook_run_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose valuable traits beyond the schema — ordered execution, output storage in the notebook, and the fail-fast default governed by stop_on_error. However, it is silent on session requirements, timeout behavior, cost/duration, and what happens to partially produced outputs on failure.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core action and ordering constraint are front-loaded, with the scoping detail and error-handling exception following — an efficient structure for a tool of this complexity.

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. But for a 5-parameter mutation-ish tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves session selection and per-cell timeout semantics entirely unexplained, which an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: `start` (index to begin from) and `stop_on_error` (fail-fast toggle) are given real meaning. `path`, `session`, and `timeout_per_cell` — including the notable 300s default — are never explained anywhere.

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+resource: 'Run every code cell in order' clearly identifies batch notebook execution, and the parenthetical scope qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling colab_notebook_run_cell (single cell). An agent can tell from the first clause exactly what this does without opening 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 by the description ('run every code cell') but the tool never states when to prefer it over colab_notebook_run_cell, colab_run, or colab_exec, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing session/kernel. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative appears.

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