cross_notebook_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits and the behavior of querying multiple notebooks, but lacks details on authentication requirements, permission scoping, or error handling (e.g., if no notebooks match). The mention of 'per-notebook citations' is vague on format.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a bullet-style list of parameters. Every sentence contributes unique value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (context signals confirm 'has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values. It covers the three selection methods and warns about rate limits, but could mention that at least one selection method (notebook_names, tags, or all) is effectively required for a meaningful query.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It clearly explains each parameter: 'query' as the question, 'notebook_names' as comma-separated names/IDs, 'tags' as comma-separated tags, and 'all' as a boolean with caution. This adds rich context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 queries multiple notebooks and returns aggregated answers with per-notebook citations. It specifies three distinct selection methods (by name, tags, or all notebooks), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'notebook_query' that likely targets a single notebook.

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 explains when to use each selection method (notebook_names, tags, all) and warns about rate limits for 'all=True'. It implicitly differentiates from single-notebook query tools but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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