colab_fs_stat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable non-obvious trait: a missing path may be due to reclamation, not just non-existence, and recommends verifying the session fingerprint first. This goes beyond what the schema states and helps the agent avoid misinterpreting results. It does not describe return format or side effects, but the tool is clearly read-only in nature from the name.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the action, the second provides a critical caution. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the operation and warns about a key edge case (reclamation). It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., metadata fields), but the term 'stat' conventionally implies metadata. The warning about session fingerprint adds essential operational context that compensates for the missing output schema.

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%, and each parameter (path, session, checksum) has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already explains path confinement, session rules, and the checksum boolean.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Stat/checksum a path.' This distinguishes it from siblings like colab_fs_list (which lists directory contents) and colab_fs_read (which reads file content). The use of 'stat' and 'checksum' unambiguously signals metadata retrieval and integrity checking.

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 second sentence provides important context: 'Missing may mean reclamation; verify the session fingerprint first.' This advises the agent on how to interpret a missing path and emphasizes verifying session identity before concluding. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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