Ler uma fonte

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the data's provenance (text NotebookLM extracted from notebook sources) and carries a prompt-injection warning to treat the content as information, not instructions.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the payload, the second delivers the security caveat. Nothing is wasted and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully says what comes back (full text plus optional guide). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has what it needs, though it could note truncation behavior tied to max_caracteres.

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 all four parameters (notebook, fonte, guia, max_caracteres) are already documented. The description echoes the guide concept (summary and topics) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource combo — reads the full extracted text of a source plus its guide (summary and topics). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling listing tool notebook_fontes, though it never names an alternative 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 description explains what the tool returns but never states when to choose it over notebook_fontes, notebook_pesquisar_fontes, or notebook_perguntar. Usage must be inferred from the verb 'lê'.

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