notebooklm_list_notebooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lista' implies a read, but there is no mention of read-only safety, pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements for the NotebookLM backend.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded. No wasted text, though it is terse rather than rich.

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, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (notebook_id and metadata) and scopes the result set to active notebooks. It is sufficient, though pagination or ordering behavior remains 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the baseline for 0-param tools this sits at 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is required.

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 (Lista) and resource (cuadernos de investigación jurídica activos en Google NotebookLM), plus what is returned (notebook_id y metadatos). It is clear against unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly name the related notebooklm_create_notebook / notebooklm_query tools it could be confused with.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus notebooklm_create_notebook, notebooklm_add_source or notebooklm_query. The word 'activos' hints at a filter but no conditions or alternatives are given.

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