notebook_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields, the meaning of 'ownership' values, and a specific known limitation (wXbhsf returns only the most-recent owned notebook). This is strong transparency, though it does not explicitly mention authentication requirements or error behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: three short paragraphs each serving a distinct purpose (purpose, output, limitation). There is no redundant information or fluff.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and a notable limitation. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers parameter semantics (trivially). Per the baseline rule for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; no additional descriptive compensation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List notebooks visible to the signed-in Google account.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('notebooks'), scoped to the signed-in account, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_create or notebook_query.

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 a simple listing use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as notebook_query. The known limitation about pagination hints at when it might not be suitable, but no alternative tool is referenced or exclusion is clearly stated.

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