Detalhes/status de um artifact.
Bulk support: accepts notebook_ids, artifact_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifact_id | Yes | ||
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| artifact_ids | No | ||
| notebook_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds the bulk execution feature, which is useful context. No additional behaviors like rate limits or authentication needs are disclosed, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.
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 extremely concise—two short lines with clear information. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a separate line for bulk support. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 four parameters and no output schema, the description omits details about return values, what constitutes 'details/status', and how single vs. batch requests differ. Annotations cover safety but not functionality. The bulk support mention is helpful but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that 'artifact_ids' and 'notebook_ids' enable batch execution, clarifying the purpose of the array parameters beyond the schema's raw structure. This adds meaningful context for selecting single vs. batch calls.
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 states 'Detalhes/status de um artifact' (details/status of an artifact), clearly indicating the tool retrieves artifact information. It distinguishes from siblings like 'notebooklm_artifact_delete' and 'notebooklm_artifact_list', though the verb 'get' is implied by the title but not explicit in the description.
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 mentions bulk support via 'artifact_ids' and 'notebook_ids', giving context for batch usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus similar tools like 'notebooklm_artifact_list' or provide exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (notebook vs source vs note vs artifact vs sharing). Minor overlap exists between notebooklm_ask and notebooklm_history (both Q&A-related) and between artifact generate/poll/retry, but descriptions help differentiate. Meta-tools like marketplace and authenticate are separate in function.
Core tools follow a consistent notebooklm_{resource}_{action} pattern. However, meta-tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) lack the notebooklm_ prefix, breaking overall naming consistency. Within the core domain, naming is predictable.
43 tools is high but covers a broad domain: notebooks, sources, notes, artifacts (multiple types), sharing, Q&A, plus meta-tools. Some tools could be merged (e.g., share_add/remove/update/view_level), and meta-tools inflate count. Feels slightly heavy but not excessive for the feature set.
Covers full lifecycle for notebooks, sources, notes, artifacts (CRUD plus generate, download, poll, retry, suggestions). Sharing and Q&A have comprehensive operations. Minor gap: no tool to update notebook metadata beyond rename, but overall very complete.