notebook_research_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions waiting and cancelling but does not disclose that wait blocks up to a 600s default timeout, what cancel does to an in-flight run, whether import_sources has side effects on the notebook, or what happens when both wait and cancel are set.

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 filler, and the primary verb (Check status) leads. It is dense because four modes are squeezed into one line, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a 9-parameter, multi-mode tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, and the description explains only about a third of the parameters and none of the mode interactions.

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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely doesn't: timeout, task_id, notebook_id, workspace_dir, cited_only, and allow_duplicate get no mention at all. Only wait, cancel, and import_sources are hinted at, and even those are not tied to their parameter names or defaults.

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 names the resource (a Fast/Deep Research run) and enumerates four concrete operations: check status, wait, import sources, cancel. This is specific enough to distinguish it from notebook_research (which presumably launches a run) and notebook_status (notebook-level status), though the multi-mode nature of one tool is somewhat compressed into a single clause.

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?

It lists the possible modes but never says when to pick which, whether flags are mutually exclusive, or how this differs from notebook_research/notebook_status. An agent must infer from parameter names that setting wait=true is the blocking variant, and nothing warns that import_sources/cancel mutate state.

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