notebook_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it reveals the bounded page nature, default values, and the pattern for forward pagination with offset/limit and has_more. This discloses the actual behavior without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by pagination details. Field names are in backticks for clarity. No filler or redundant information.

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 that this is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is listed, pagination mechanics, defaults, and the page-advance algorithm. Nothing substantive is missing.

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 0%—the schema only provides types and defaults. The description compensates fully by explaining what limit and offset do, including defaults (50, 0) and how to use them for paging (offset += limit). This gives the agent everything needed to pass parameters correctly.

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 'List' with a clear resource ('all notebooks') and specifies the returned fields (id + title + metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_describe (single notebook details) and mutation tools like notebook_create/delete/rename.

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 explicitly explains how to page through results using limit/offset and has_more, which is usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_describe or notebook_search, nor does it mention any exclusions. Clear context without alternative naming.

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