select_notebook

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 discloses that the tool creates a local directory and returns its path, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (creation implies mutation), error handling, or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing directories). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 action and outcome, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly. Overall, it's 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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation implications, error cases) and usage guidelines. For a tool that creates directories, more context on side effects would be beneficial.

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 meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'notebook_id' is 'The ID of the NotebookLM notebook,' clarifying the parameter's purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates adequately. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., string pattern) or constraints, keeping it at a baseline level.

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: 'Selects a notebook by ID and creates a local directory for it based on its title. Returns the path to the created directory.' This specifies the verb (selects and creates), resource (notebook), and outcome (directory path). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notebooks' (which lists) or 'get_notebook_sources' (which retrieves sources), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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., needing a notebook ID from 'list_notebooks'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'ask_notebook' for querying. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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