notebooklm_list_notebooks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses that this is a list/read operation and that results are limited to recently viewed notebooks, but it does not mention pagination defaults, ordering, result shape, or access restrictions. Some behavior is conveyed, but not deeply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word in 'List recently viewed notebooks' contributes to understanding.

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 simple one-parameter list call, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it does not clarify what a returned notebook object looks like or what 'recently viewed' means in terms of ordering and time window. It is not severely incomplete, but has clear gaps.

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 input schema covers pageSize with the description 'Number of notebooks to return' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about pageSize behavior such as default or maximum values.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('notebooks'), and a scope qualifier ('recently viewed'), making it distinct from sibling operations like get_notebook or create_notebook. This is enough for an agent to know what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'recently viewed' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: a user wants their recent notebooks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the read/list intent obvious compared to metadata or mutation tools.

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