notebook_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' signals a read-only operation and 'compact summaries' gives some idea of the response style, but side effects, access requirements, and summary truncation behavior are not stated.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool returns. There is no filler or repeated schema 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?

The tool is simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It lacks only an explicit alternative-routing note, but for a low-complexity info tool this is nearly complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'path' parameter. The word 'notebook' in the description implies path points to a notebook, but the meaning and expected format are left to inference.

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 ('Return') and names a clear resource ('notebook metadata and compact summaries of all cells'). This distinguishes it from the cell-level siblings (read_cell, add_cell, edit_cell) because it is the notebook-level overview tool.

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 implies when the tool is useful: when an agent needs notebook-level metadata or a summary of all cells. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings such as read_cell or add_cell, nor any exclusions.

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