colab_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait that no runtime is started, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'report' returns, whether it has side effects, or how authentication readiness is determined, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the action and key constraint. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but because there is no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what the report contains (e.g., boolean, status object). It does not, leaving the agent unaware of the return format. Still, the core purpose and non-invasive nature are covered.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific information, and there is no schema to complement. It is appropriately silent on parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'authentication readiness', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like colab_start or colab_process_start. The qualifier 'without starting a runtime' adds a distinguishing scope that makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without starting a runtime' implies this is a safe, lightweight pre-flight check that can be used before heavier operations like colab_start or colab_process_start. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full explicit guidance.

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