notebook_run_all

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it saves outputs back to the notebook file (save_outputs), stops on error by default (stop_on_error), and has per-cell timeout. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and covers important side effects (writing to file) and execution semantics.

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 highly concise: a single sentence defining the tool's purpose followed by a bullet list of all five parameters with defaults and explanations. No redundant text; every sentence adds value. Information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (assumed to cover return values), the description adequately explains all parameters and core behavior. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling beyond stop_on_error, and any performance or state implications (e.g., kernel reset).

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?

While the description attempts to explain each parameter, it inaccurately states the default for kernel_name as 'python3' when the input schema specifies default null. This contradiction misleads the agent about the tool's actual default behavior. Schema description coverage is 0%, so accurate parameter documentation is critical.

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 'Execute every cell in the notebook in order and return all outputs,' which specifies the verb (execute), resource (every cell in the notebook), and scope (in order, all outputs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_run_cell (single cell) and notebook_run_range (range of cells).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' conditions, and does not mention any prerequisites or context for preferring full notebook execution over running individual cells or ranges.

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