Studio List

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile, and the description goes well beyond them: merged ``items`` shape, per-item fields, ``status_label``/``url`` on artifacts, pagination semantics (``total``/``offset``/``has_more``), null handling for unknown metadata, and the NOT_FOUND behavior on ``item``. It even discloses which parameters are silently ignored when ``item`` is supplied.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the bulleted structure keeps the parameter semantics scannable rather than buried in prose. It is dense and runs long, but nearly every clause carries distinct operational information, so little is wasted.

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 6-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: parameter interactions, pagination, detail modes, and the one cross-tool handoff for artifact bodies. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 full burden and does: ``notebook`` accepts name or ID, ``kind`` filters to one type, ``detail`` is defined as a three-rung ladder with per-mode fields, ``limit``/``offset`` define a bounded page, and ``item`` overrides the rest. This meaningfully exceeds anything inferable from the bare schema types.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("List a notebook's Studio panel") and immediately clarifies scope ("text notes AND generated artifacts"), which is the key distinction from artifacts-only or note-only siblings. An agent can tell this apart from studio_status and studio_download without opening a 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?

It explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for one case ("read a report/data-table body via studio_download") and explains the single-item shortcut via ``item`` versus listing. However, it never contrasts this tool with close siblings like studio_status or notebook_describe, so the when-not-to-use picture is only partially drawn.

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