notebook_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation and the description adds scope about workspace binding and authentication across engines, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permission requirements, or edge-case behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core check efficiently, though it could be clearer about 'both engines'.

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?

The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so return values do not need description coverage. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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% for the single optional workspace_dir parameter. The description mentions 'current workspace' but does not explain how workspace_dir is supplied, what the default null means, or how it relates to the current workspace.

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 clear verb and resource: checking current workspace Gemini Notebook binding and authentication status. It is distinguishable from login-oriented siblings by focusing on status, though the phrase 'both engines' is not explained and no sibling is explicitly named.

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 implies this is a status-checking tool, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as notebook_login. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided.

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