mavis_noter

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the prerequisite (nlm CLI installed and authenticated), but the side effects of mutating actions (add_source, create_notebook) are only implied by the action names. It does not explain the effect on the notebook, potential reversibility, or timeout behavior beyond the schema's timeout_seconds parameter.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage context, then operational details. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy, and it fits within a brief paragraph.

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 complexity (5 actions, 7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a useful orientation: it identifies the default notebook, gives example use cases, and lists actions. However, it does not map actions to their required parameters or explain what each action returns, which would be needed for a complete 5. Still, the schema covers per-parameter requirements, so 4 is fair.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the default notebook is the KOMO OS doctrinal manifesto (50+ sources), giving meaning to the notebook_id and action defaults. It also lists the actions, which reinforces the enum, but doesn't deepen parameter semantics further.

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 clearly states that this tool queries and updates the KOMO OS NotebookLM notebook via the nlm CLI, and lists the specific actions (query, add_source, create_notebook, list_notebooks, doctor). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mavis_git or mavis_bash, which have different domains.

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 explicitly says 'Use to check doctrinal alignment, look up historical decisions, and document new patterns,' giving clear use cases. It also notes the prerequisite that the nlm CLI must be installed and authenticated. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it is just shy of a 5.

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