notebook_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape and one behavioral nuance (full outputs include images), which is genuine value. However it never states that this is a non-mutating/safe operation, nor anything about cost, size limits, or behavior when the notebook is stale relative to expected_content_hash.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool reads before the optional flag tip. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does list cell index, type, source and outputs. What is missing is edge behavior: whether omitted cell_indexes means all cells (only in the schema), ordering, and how truncation or errors surface.

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 schema already documents path, cell_indexes, include_source, include_outputs and expected_content_hash, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces one parameter's effect (include_outputs='full' returns images), adding modest meaning but no syntax or default information beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (Jupyter notebook) and enumerates what is returned: cell index, type, source and existing outputs. It is easily distinguished from notebook_edit and notebook_run by the read verb, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is a conditional tip: set include_outputs='full' to get outputs including images. There is no statement of when to prefer this over notebook_edit or notebook_run, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. must the kernel be idle?). Usage is implied by the read verb rather than explained.

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