colab_keepalive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a critical limitation (cannot prevent reclamation) and advises to 'start and restore' on loss, which is useful context. It omits details like response format or side effects, but for a simple heartbeat tool this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. The second sentence adds an important caveat and recovery hint without verbosity.

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?

For a simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, limitation, and a recovery hint. It does not explicitly tie parameters to behavior, but the schema handles that, and the phrase 'start and restore' is slightly ambiguous, preventing a 5.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Report/refresh' and resource 'heartbeat', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like colab_health and colab_sessions. The caveat 'cannot prevent reclamation' adds further purpose specificity by stating what the tool does not do.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (to report or refresh a heartbeat) and a key exclusion ('cannot prevent reclamation'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the limitation helps the agent understand this is not a reclamation-prevention tool, offering implicit guidance.

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