notebook_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the transport (GCP v1alpha REST or RPC bridge) but says nothing about authentication requirements, given that a sibling notebook_login exists, pagination behavior tied to page_size, or rate/size limits on listing.

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 the verb and resource first and the optional filter trailing. No redundant filler, though it omits the operational context that would have earned a 5.

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 described. But for a four-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and no parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent unable to choose an engine, size pages, or understand prerequisites before calling.

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. The description explains only the title filter (query), leaving engine, page_size, and workspace_dir entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (List) and resource (Gemini Notebooks), plus the optional title filter, so an agent can distinguish it from mutating siblings like notebook_create or notebook_delete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from read siblings such as notebook_get or notebook_search_sources.

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 alternatives (e.g. notebook_get for a single notebook, or how the 'engine' choice should be made). The only implicit guidance is that a title filter may be supplied, which an agent could infer from the name alone.

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