colab_notebook_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description discloses nothing about recursion depth, pagination, ordering, or whether hidden/outside-directory files are included—behavioral traits an agent would want to know.

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?

One efficient sentence with the key resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple read-only listing. Still, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema documentation, the description leaves recursion and scope behavior unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'directory' parameter (default '.') is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'under a directory of the working directory' at least hints that the argument is relative to the working directory, adding some meaning, but format and edge cases are absent.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (.ipynb files) with a directory scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the broader colab_ls sibling by narrowing to .ipynb files, though it never names that distinction explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as colab_ls (general file listing) or colab_notebook_read (reading notebook contents). An agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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