agy_notebook_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run queries' and 'ingested as context,' offering no information about read-only guarantees, potential side effects like indexing, required permissions, or performance implications.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource, with the NotebookLM analogy adding value without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and readable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a missing parameter description for 'model', the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, ingestion behavior, or prerequisites, so an agent may not know what to expect or how to fully configure the query.

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 descriptions already cover 'directories' and 'prompt', and the description adds context that folders are used as query context. However, the 'model' parameter lacks any description in the schema, and the description does not clarify its role or accepted values, leaving a gap in the 67% 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 tool runs queries over project folders ingested as context, with the NotebookLM analogy reinforcing the concept. It is specific enough to distinguish from general chat or analysis tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope exclusions.

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?

Usage is implied through 'project folders ingested as context' and the NotebookLM analogy, suggesting it is for question-answering over codebases. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools like agy_chat or agy_analyze.

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