colab_process_list

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 explicitly states the read-only nature via the verb 'list' and adds context about persistence and ownership. It does not disclose edge cases like session disambiguation, but that is subtle and covered by the schema, making this a sufficiently transparent description for a list operation.

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: one stating the core action and resource, the other explaining when it is useful. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter, existing output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and why to invoke the tool. It explicitly ties the operation to the restart recovery workflow and indicates the kind of information obtainable (IDs and export state).

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 fully describes the single parameter 'session,' including the null behavior when exactly one session exists. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric for high schema coverage.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'persisted owned processes,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that act on individual processes (e.g., colab_process_status, colab_process_output). The added context about recovering IDs and export state further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'After restart, use this to recover IDs and export state.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, 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.