notebook_run_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that kernel state is preserved, outputs are returned, and save_outputs controls writing back to file. It does not explicitly state if the operation is destructive, but the nature of executing code implies mutation. The description adequately covers behavioral traits.

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 concise with one main sentence followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 many sibling tools, the description clearly identifies this tool's role. It covers key aspects: execution behavior, parameter details, and output. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies paths, indices, kernel options, timeout, and save behavior, which is excellent compensation.

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 executes a single code cell and returns outputs, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like notebook_run_all or notebook_run_range.

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 explains that kernel state is preserved and cells can depend on earlier ones, providing context for when to use. It also suggests using notebook_list_kernels for kernel options. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like run_range.

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