get_notebook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes by noting the returned payload includes a generated summary and suggested topics, which is behavioral context not in the annotations. It says nothing about failure modes (unknown notebook_id) or whether summary/topics can be absent, so it adds only modest value.

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?

A single short clause with no filler; the return contents are listed up front. It is perhaps overly terse for its scope, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present the return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is small. Still, for a lookup tool across a 22-tool sibling set, the description gives no scoping or routing context beyond the resource list, leaving the agent to infer its place in the workflow.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter notebook_id carries a description that even points at list_notebooks for discovery, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies for full schema coverage with no extra meaning.

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 names a specific resource surface (metadata, generated summary, suggested topics) which goes beyond the bare name 'get_notebook', but the verb is only implied and there is no differentiation from siblings such as list_notebooks or get_source_outline. An agent can infer it fetches one notebook's details, but only through the resource listing.

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 offers no guidance on when to call this versus list_notebooks or ask_notebook, and states no preconditions. The only routing hint ('obtenlo con list_notebooks') lives in the schema, not the description, and it is about acquiring the ID rather than when to use the tool.

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