studio_list

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: pagination bounds (limit/offset, total, has_more), the detail ladder (summary, full, compact), item-specific behavior (returns 1-element list with full content, NOT_FOUND on no match, ignores limit/offset/detail), and kind scoping. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long but densely informational, with a clear first line, then structured paragraphs and bullet-style lists for detail and item behaviors. Every sentence contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition. The front-loading of the core purpose and the organized breakdown of parameter interactions make it highly effective.

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 complexity (6 parameters, multiple behaviors, output schema exists), the description is remarkably complete. It covers pagination, the detail ladder, kind filtering, single-item fetches, and error behavior (NOT_FOUND). Since an output schema exists, return values need not be fully re-explained, but the description still outlines item fields. No critical gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains every parameter: notebook (name or ID), item (name or id), kind (filters to one type), limit/offset (pagination), detail (three levels with exact field differences), and notes interactions such as 'kind scopes resolution' and 'limit/offset/detail are ignored with item.' This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List a notebook's Studio panel — text notes AND generated artifacts.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like studio_generate (creates) and studio_download (fetches artifact bodies) by stating it lists both notes and artifacts in a merged list.

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 gives explicit guidance for when to use studio_download instead ('read a report/data-table body via studio_download'), and clarifies that item fetches a specific item, ignoring other params. It provides context about the detail ladder and kind filtering, but could more explicitly contrast with studio_status or studio_generate. Overall, it offers clear context with one explicit alternative.

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