colab_allocation_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that leases can expire or mismatch and that replacements should not be followed, which are behavioral traits, but it doesn't explain what the lease is for, what 'pass it' means, or what side effects/return values to expect. The guidance is too cryptic to be useful.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Issue an operation lease'). Every word is purposeful, though the extreme brevity contributes to the overall lack of clarity.

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?

The tool appears to involve a time-sensitive lease mechanism, but the description does not explain what 'pass it immediately' entails, what lease expiry/mismatch means, or what 'replacement' refers to. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (session, interval, observations) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Issue an operation lease,' which is a specific verb and resource, but the concept of an operation lease is left undefined and the connection to allocation is not made explicit. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools, as 'operation lease' is never contextualized within the colab toolset.

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 conditional instructions ('if expired/mismatched, probe again, never follow replacement') that imply a usage pattern, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or what qualifies as expired/mismatched. Usage is implied through the protocol rather than explicitly stated.

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