list_notebooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (listing) and the source (local library), which implies a read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly confirm that no modifications occur, nor does it mention any side effects or limitations. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the main action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the key details (notebooks, counts, local library) are front-loaded.

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 simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does. It does not specify whether all notebooks are returned or any ordering/filtering, but for a basic listing operation this is likely sufficient. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return formats.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per instructions, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing for the description to add about parameter usage.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('notebooks and active-note counts'), and identifies the data source ('local Simple Sticky Notes library'). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on notes (e.g., search_notes, get_note), so an agent can easily separate it from alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the function name and description make the purpose obvious, there is no mention of scenarios where a different tool would be preferred, nor any prerequisites or context for invocation.

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