runtime_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance ('without provisioning compute') and specifies what is checked, but it does not describe auth requirements, potential latency, or whether the mount must be pre-configured. This goes slightly beyond annotations but is not comprehensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It captures the core function, target resources, and the key non-effect efficiently, earning 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It names what is checked (runtime, Drive mount) and explicitly states no compute provisioning occurs. However, without an output schema, it does not mention what the result looks like (e.g., status summary, boolean, or error behavior), which could be useful but is not critical.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to supply and sets expectations that the tool only performs a read-only check. No additional parameter detail is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('configured Colab runtime and Drive mount'), and explicitly distinguishes it from provisioning actions by adding 'without provisioning compute.' This differentiates it from start_runtime and others in the sibling list.

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 provisioning compute' implies an appropriate use-case (status check without side effects), but it does not explicitly name alternatives like start_runtime or state when to use this over prepare_workspace. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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