notebook_get_source_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say the operation is read-only, what happens if the source is not indexed, whether text is truncated, or what the returned guide contains. The one piece of real context is that the guide is an optional AI summary/keywords artifact.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves the agent guessing about the roles of notebook_id and workspace_dir and about failure behavior. For a four-parameter tool this is under-described.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description only touches include_guide indirectly ('optional AI summary/keywords guide'). It says nothing about source_id, notebook_id, or workspace_dir — notably why a notebook_id is needed when a source_id is already supplied.

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 gives a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('the full indexed text ... of a specific source'), and the 'full indexed text' phrasing separates it from search-style siblings like notebook_search_sources. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus notebook_get, notebook_search_sources, or notebook_query, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only hint is that it targets 'a specific source', which the agent must infer.

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