colab_notebook_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read shape and that outputs are optionally included and that large notebooks can be paged, but it never states side-effect safety, permission/auth requirements, or whether reads are non-destructive. The return format itself is covered by the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the paging hint appended where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and paging. It is nearly complete for a read tool, missing only permission/side-effect framing that no annotation supplies.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for start/end (paging) and include_outputs (whether saved outputs appear), but leaves `path` and the semantics of index-based start/end bounds unexplained.

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+resource ("Show a notebook's cells") and enumerates the returned fields (index, id, type, source), which lets an agent distinguish it from mutation siblings like colab_notebook_edit_cell. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (colab_notebook_list), so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage through the optional outputs flag and the paging hint ("Use start/end to page through big notebooks"), which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusion, and no routing to colab_notebook_list or colab_notebook_to_script.

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