generate_infographic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Generates an Infographic' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are needed, potential rate limits, or what happens during generation (e.g., if it modifies the notebook). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a generation tool.

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, with the main purpose stated first. The two-sentence structure is efficient, and the Args section is clear. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the parameter list, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (generation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description should do more to compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 description lists two parameters (notebook_id and instructions) with brief explanations, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description adds some meaning (e.g., 'The ID of the NotebookLM notebook' and 'Custom instructions for infographic generation'), but it's insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, especially for a tool with 2 parameters where one has a default value.

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 purpose: 'Generates an Infographic for a notebook' with specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('Infographic for a notebook'). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_report or generate_slides by specifying the output type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., generate_video), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose generate_infographic over generate_report, generate_slides, or other output-generation siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is having a notebook, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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