colab_process_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior ('use preserved metadata and restore artifacts') but does not state whether the operation has side effects or what the response contains. Some behavioral context is present, but gaps remain.

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, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is presented efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe what a status inspection returns or what 'restore artifacts' means. The purpose is clear, but operational details needed for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool are missing.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific information. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 'Inspect owned process' with a specific verb and resource, and the conditional about runtime vanishing adds behavioral scope that distinguishes it from sibling process tools like colab_process_list or colab_process_output.

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 a conditional ('if runtime vanished') that hints at a use case, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like colab_process_list or colab_process_output. No exclusionary guidance is given.

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