notebook_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool queries existing sources but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. While implied, a more explicit statement about safety would improve transparency. The parameter details (e.g., timeout default) add behavioral context.

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: two short introductory sentences followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy, clear separation of purpose, usage, and parameter docs.

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 has an output schema (no need to explain return values) and 5 parameters, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use vs. alternatives, and parameter semantics. It also mentions environment-based defaults, making it complete for a query tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section, including defaults and purpose (e.g., source_ids defaults to all, conversation_id for follow-ups, timeout from env). This adds significant meaning 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Ask AI about EXISTING sources already in notebook.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from finding new sources, setting it apart from siblings like research_start.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use this tool ('NOT for finding new sources') and suggests an alternative: 'Use research_start instead for: deep research, web search, find new sources, Drive search.' This is excellent contextual advice.

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