notebook_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds useful context about the output (deterministic fallbacks for summaries) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, cost, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, follows with usage guidance, and adds a nuanced detail about fallbacks. No unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists (documenting return values), the description focuses on what is not obvious from the schema: the content of each line, dependency edges, and lint findings. It is mostly complete for a read-only overview tool, though parameter explanation is missing.

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%. The tool description does not explain the two parameters ('path' and 'refresh_summaries') beyond what the schema provides (type and default). This leaves the agent guessing about the meaning and usage of parameters.

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 the tool provides an index of the notebook with per-cell details and additional features like dependency edges and lint findings. It also positions itself as the starting point when opening a notebook, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_cells or search_cells.

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 includes 'Start here when opening a notebook,' which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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