upnote_list_notebooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is read-only ('List') and that the note count is dynamic ('live'), which is genuinely useful. It does not mention pagination or return formatting, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is sufficient.

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 a single tightly worded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the key output detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, this description is complete enough: it identifies the resource and the notable returned attribute (live note count). It does not specify the exact response shape, but no output schema exists and the user intent is fully served.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden for the description to compensate for. The description fully covers what the agent needs to know; no parameter-level context is required.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('every UpNote notebook'), and a concrete output detail ('with its live note count'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like upnote_list_notes or upnote_list_tags.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need an enumeration of all notebooks with their current note counts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and description make the appropriate context obvious among the sibling list tools.

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