notebooklm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists content but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what format the return data is in, if there are pagination limits, or if it requires authentication. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one detailing the return types. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate bullet-like statement.

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 simple listing tool with 2 parameters (fully documented in schema) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks context about behavioral aspects (like read-only nature, session requirements) that would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (notebook_url and session_id). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 tool lists 'all sources and generated content in the current notebook' with specific examples (documents, URLs, audio overviews), providing a concrete verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_notebooks' or 'get_notebook', which focus on notebooks themselves rather than notebook content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_content' over 'get_notebook' (which might return notebook metadata) or 'list_notebooks' (which lists notebooks rather than content), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an active notebook session.

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