notebook_files

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the result ordering ('newest first'), which is genuine behavioral information, but says nothing about which folder path is used, whether results are paginated or truncated, or how entries are represented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (file type, folder, ordering) carries information.

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?

For a zero-argument read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description would ideally convey what a returned entry looks like or how to act on it. As written, an agent knows scope and ordering but not the shape of the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless call.

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?

Names a specific resource (.ipynb notebooks), its location (the SQL folder), and its ordering (newest first), so an agent can tell roughly what it returns. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list', and it does not distinguish itself from neighbors such as files_browse, sql_editor_files, or notebook_open that also surface notebook files.

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 statement of when to use this over the many adjacent listing tools (files_browse, sql_editor_files, notebook_open). The 'SQL folder' scope is the only implicit usage cue, leaving routing to inference.

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