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 burden. It states it lists notebooks for the authenticated user, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. archived). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all available NotebookLM notebooks') and includes essential context ('for the authenticated user'). Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and an output schema, it should ideally explain what 'list' returns (e.g., format, fields) or behavioral aspects, but the output schema might cover return values. It's complete enough for basic use but lacks depth for robust agent operation.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't need to cover parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('NotebookLM notebooks') with scope ('all available... for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'select_notebook' (which likely selects one) and 'get_notebook_sources' (which focuses on sources). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'ask_notebook' which might also list notebooks in some contexts, 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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions (e.g., not for filtering), or compare to siblings like 'select_notebook' for picking a specific notebook. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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