notebooklm_list_notebooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it requires authentication (addressing auth needs) and specifies the return format ('Returns a list of notebook titles'), which is crucial for a tool with no output schema. It doesn't mention rate limits or other constraints, but for a simple list tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by authentication requirement and return value, all in three concise sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without fluff.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough: it states the purpose, authentication needs, and return format. It could potentially mention pagination or error handling, but for a basic list tool, this covers the key context adequately.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, and it compensates by explaining the return value. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it handles the lack of parameters well without redundancy.

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 resource ('all notebooks in NotebookLM'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'canvas_notebook_list' (which doesn't exist in the provided list), but since all siblings are Canvas-related except other NotebookLM tools, the distinction is somewhat implied but not explicit.

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 to use it by stating 'Requires authentication (run notebooklm_auth_setup first if needed)', which is a clear prerequisite. It doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context (listing notebooks) is straightforward, and the authentication requirement is a key usage guideline.

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