download_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions downloading notes to a local subfolder, it doesn't describe key behavioral traits: what format the notes are downloaded in (e.g., text files, PDFs), whether this operation requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, or what happens if the notebook doesn't exist. For a tool that performs file system operations with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and location, the second provides usage guidance, and the Args section efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should do more: it lacks details on error conditions, file formats, or system dependencies (e.g., local directory permissions). It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'notebook_id' refers to 'The ID of the NotebookLM notebook' (clarifying the platform) and that 'subfolder_name' is 'The name of the subfolder to save notes' with a default value. This covers both parameters adequately, though it doesn't detail constraints like ID format or subfolder naming rules.

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 specific action ('Downloads all notes') from a specific resource ('from a specific notebook') into a specific location ('into a local subfolder within the directory created for that notebook'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_note' (which creates) or 'get_notebook_sources' (which retrieves sources, not notes).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'select_notebook should typically be run first to get the main folder.' This gives clear context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., how it differs from 'get_notebook_sources' or 'list_notebooks').

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