marm_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the basic effect of each action (e.g., 'clear the active entry list') but does not reveal side effects, idempotency, or what 'activate entries as instructions' entails. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise, using a bulleted list format that is easy to parse. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the core action verbs are front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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, 5 parameters) and the lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers all actions but omits details about the return value (though an output schema exists) and does not address prerequisites or error conditions. The description is functional but not fully thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'name' and 'data' (for add) and 'names' (for use), but omits 'session_name' entirely. This partial coverage only adds marginal value beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as a 'unified notebook' and enumerates five distinct actions (add, use, show, status, clear), each with a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like marm_compaction or marm_delete, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use each action (e.g., 'action="add": save or update an entry'). However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent to decide between marm_notebook and other tools.

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