read_notebook_source_only

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 reads without outputs, which is a key behavioral trait, and implies read-only operation. It does not mention any additional side effects or permissions, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 redundancy. It front-loads the core function and adds usage context efficiently, making every word meaningful.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and how to get outputs separately. It could explicitly say it returns the notebook source, but that is strongly implied by 'Read the current version of the notebook.'

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 schema has only one parameter, notebook_path, with no description. The tool description mentions 'the notebook at notebook_path,' explicitly tying the parameter to the notebook's location. While it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints, the single parameter's meaning is clear from context.

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 reads the current notebook version without outputs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling read_notebook_with_outputs and read_output_of_cell tools by explicitly mentioning the absence of outputs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when size limitations prevent reading the full notebook with outputs.' It also names an alternative for retrieving cell outputs (read_output_of_cell), giving clear and actionable context.

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