list_local_notebooks

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. Without annotations, the description should clarify read-only nature, potential side effects, or response characteristics. It only states the action.

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 extremely concise at a single sentence. While it is not verbose, it lacks necessary details that would justify a top score. It is not wasteful, but could be expanded slightly.

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 has two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter behavior or the return structure (even though an output schema exists). The description leaves ambiguity about query functionality.

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 description adds no meaning to the input schema parameters. The 'query' and 'limit' parameters are unexplained; the description does not clarify how 'query' filters or how 'limit' works. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 tool's purpose: listing local .ipynb notebooks under a specific root directory (COLAB_MCP_ROOT). The verb 'list' and resource 'local notebooks' are specific, and the tool is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_drive_notebooks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, or when to use list_drive_notebooks instead. The description lacks contextual cues for tool selection.

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