Cross Notebook Query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output shape—aggregated answers with per-notebook citations—but it does not mention rate-limit cautions on all=True, potential long-running behavior, or the async alternative notebook_query_start/status.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and result, and the second covers selection modes efficiently.

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?

The output schema and full parameter coverage reduce the need for extra detail. However, because there are no annotations, the description would benefit from explicitly noting rate limits, async options, or the difference between this and the single-notebook query tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly restates the notebook selection options (by name, tags, all=True) without adding meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Query multiple notebooks' and defines the result as 'aggregated answers with per-notebook citations.' This clearly distinguishes it from the single-notebook sibling notebook_query.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: when querying across multiple notebooks. It also gives the three selection modes: by name, by tags, or all notebooks. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the cross-notebook scope is evident.

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