colab_run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: the command continues running after timeout, requiring the agent to manage the process via process_id and output/status polling or signaling. This goes beyond a simple 'run command' and meaningfully prepares the agent for durability semantics.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with 'Run durably.' Each clause earns its place by conveying the durability contract and the required follow-up actions. There is zero 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is terse but touches the most critical context: durability, timeout behavior, and process management. The schema covers parameter details comprehensively, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return format or examples, leaving some gaps for a complex tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on post-run behavior. The 'retain process_id' hint relates to output, not parameter semantics, so no extra credit is warranted.

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 'Run durably' specifies a clear action (run) and implies the resource (a command). It distinguishes the tool's core value proposition (durable execution) from typical one-shot execution, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like colab_execute or colab_process_start. The mention of 'retain process_id, poll output/status, or signal' clarifies the command's lifecycle.

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 implies when to use the tool: for durable command execution where a timeout shouldn't kill the process. It gives actionable post-timeout guidance (retain process_id, poll output/status, signal), but it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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