Notebook List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List all notebooks.' It does not mention pagination, ordering, default limits, or that this is a read-only operation. The schema's max_results default of 100 also slightly conflicts with the claim of listing 'all' notebooks.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for such a simple tool, though it omits useful context that would have made it more complete.

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 tool is simple and has full schema and output schema coverage, but the description lacks usage guidance, behavioral caveats, and qualification of the 'all' claim relative to max_results. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description. The description adds no meaning about max_results, and the word 'all' could be mildly misleading given the default limit of 100, though the schema clarifies the constraint.

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 the resource 'notebooks', and the word 'all' conveys scope, which helps distinguish it from single-notebook operations like notebook_get or notebook_describe. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use notebook_list versus notebook_get, notebook_describe, or other notebook-related tools. The description gives no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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