Pergunta ao notebook; resposta FUNDAMENTADA nas fontes, com citações. Pode demorar.
Bulk support: accepts notebook_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | ||
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| notebook_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the response is grounded in sources with citations and that execution may be slow ('Pode demorar'), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and key behavior. Every word adds value, and there is 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 lack of an output schema, the description should ideally explain the return format. It mentions citations and grounding but does not describe the exact structure, error behavior, or execution semantics like streaming. It covers basic intent but misses details that would fully inform an agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions `notebook_ids` for bulk support, but does not clarify the semantics of `question` or `notebook_id` individually. Minimal parameter guidance is provided.
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 the verb 'ask' and the resource 'notebook', specifying that the answer is grounded in sources with citations. This sets it apart from sibling tools like `notebooklm_generate` and `notebooklm_history`, which imply different operations.
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 that the operation may take time and supports bulk execution via `notebook_ids`, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `notebooklm_generate` or `notebooklm_history`. Usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated.
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.