notebook_kernel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that shutdown/restart are destructive to kernel state, whether elevated permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. Only the benign 'path ignored for status' detail is conveyed, and even that is already in the schema.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the resource is stated before the action list. It is appropriately brief, though for a multi-action tool the brevity edges toward under-specification.

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?

The tool includes mutating actions (shutdown, restart) but has no annotations and no output schema to convey safety or return information. The description does not compensate, so an agent cannot tell how risky or reversible these operations are.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including path being required for start/shutdown/restart and ignored for status). The description's action list adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (kernels held for notebooks) and enumerates the operations (status, start, shutdown, restart), which is clearer than most. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like notebook_run or notebook_run_status, leaving the kernel-vs-run distinction to inference.

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?

It lists possible actions but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over notebook_run, notebook_run_status, or notebook_run_cancel. No prerequisites or conditions are stated; the agent must infer usage from the action names.

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