notebook_get

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

With no annotations, the description solely communicates a read operation ('get'). It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data scope, permission requirements, or side effects. The term 'sources' is vague and not explained.

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 very concise with two sentences covering the action and single parameter. No unnecessary words. However, it could be expanded slightly for clarity without violating conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need return value details, but it fails to explain what 'details' and 'sources' mean. The tool has many siblings (e.g., notebook_describe, notebook_list), and the description provides no context for selection, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only repeats the parameter name and type ('Notebook UUID'), adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. At 0% schema description coverage, the description should elaborate on the parameter's purpose or format, but it does not.

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 'Get notebook details with sources', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like notebook_describe or notebook_list, so there is room for improvement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notebook_list for summaries, notebook_describe for different details). The description lacks any usage context or prerequisites.

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