notebook_share_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (is_public, access_level, collaborators, public_link) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'get'. Additional details about side effects or authorization would improve clarity.

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 extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded sentence specifying the tool's purpose, followed by structured parameter and return descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read operation, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the input required. No additional context is necessary for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'notebook_id' by indicating it is a 'Notebook UUID', which is not present in the input schema (0% schema coverage). However, it does not elaborate on format or constraints, but for a single UUID parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('current sharing settings and collaborators'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_share_invite and notebook_share_public that modify sharing.

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 implies usage for viewing sharing settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on situations where this tool is appropriate and when other tools should be used.

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