notebook_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when max_results is exceeded. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second explains the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant with the schema and could be more integrated, preventing a perfect score.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and siblings offering similar functionality, it should provide more context about when to use this versus notebook_query or about behavioral aspects like ordering. It meets basic requirements but has clear gaps.

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 documents the single parameter 'max_results' with its default value, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., minimum/maximum values) or how the parameter affects the listing behavior. With one parameter documented but not fully, this meets the baseline for adequate coverage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'notebooks', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like notebook_create, notebook_delete, and notebook_describe by indicating this is a listing operation. However, it doesn't specify whether this lists all notebooks globally or within a specific scope, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like notebook_query (which likely offers filtering capabilities) and notebook_get (which retrieves a specific notebook), there's no indication of when this unfiltered list is preferred over those more targeted tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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