notebook_describe

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description complements this by detailing the return structure (notebook_id, description, and optional metadata) and the effect of include_metadata. It does not contradict the annotations and adds context about output formatting. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read operation that's acceptable.

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 two sentences, starts with the core purpose, and every clause provides useful information. It avoids fluff and repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, the presence of an output schema, and supportive annotations, the description covers the main behavior, parameters, and return shape. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke confidently, even without mentioning error scenarios.

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?

Although the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates by explaining that 'notebook' accepts a name or ID and that 'include_metadata' controls whether metadata is included, with the default behavior unchanged. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types, so it earns a high score.

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 ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('a notebook's AI-generated description'). It also notes that it accepts a name or ID, which distinguishes it from notebook_list and other mutation siblings. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it (whenever the AI description of a specific notebook is needed). It also explains how to optionally get metadata via include_metadata, which guides parameter usage. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternative statements, so it stops short of a 5.

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