Notebook List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: results are a bounded page, limit defaults to 50, offset defaults to 0, and has_more signals termination. That is the kind of pagination contract an agent needs and is not derivable from the annotations.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose before the pagination mechanics. Every sentence earns its place, though the return-field enumeration in the first sentence is partially redundant with the existing output schema.

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 two-parameter, zero-required list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, what comes back conceptually, and how to page. It does not need to explain return values further, though a note on ordering would have closed the last gap.

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 carries the burden, and it does so well: it states limit's default (50), offset's default (0), and the arithmetic for advancing (offset += limit). The only gap is that it doesn't warn about a maximum limit or behavior when limit is very large.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List all notebooks (id + title + metadata)." It even previews the returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like source_list or studio_list, but the resource noun is distinctive enough that an agent can route to it reliably.

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 the pagination workflow (re-call with offset += limit while has_more is true), which is genuine procedural guidance. However, it says nothing about when to choose notebook_list over the other list-style siblings (source_list, studio_list), so tool selection guidance is only implied.

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