notebook_get

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

The description states it returns 'detailed information' including sources and status, but does not expand on what 'detailed' entails, how the data is structured, or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden ; it is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the main purpose and key deliverables.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential information. However, it could be more complete by elaborating on what 'detailed information' includes besides sources and status, especially since there is no output schema to guide the 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 coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema already describes the parameter as 'The notebook ID (get this from notebook_list)', which is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a specific notebook including sources and their status. The verb 'get' and resource 'notebook' are specific, and the inclusion of 'all its sources' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'notebook_list' which likely only lists summaries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it's implied that one should use it when needing detailed info on a single notebook, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for filtering or listing.

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