get_notebook_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Get all sources' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details in a brief 'Args' section. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of usage context, making it efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding without additional structured data.

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 adds minimal semantics by specifying 'notebook_id: The ID of the NotebookLM notebook,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'sources associated with a specific NotebookLM notebook', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_notebooks' or 'select_notebook', which might also involve notebook data retrieval, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 prerequisites, such as needing an existing notebook, or compare it to siblings like 'list_notebooks' for broader listing or 'ask_notebook' for querying content, leaving usage context unclear.

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