notebook_kernel_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description usefully clarifies '(no code runs)', which explains why a kernel-start operation is non-destructive, but says nothing about idempotency if a kernel is already running, latency, or whether the notebook must be open. Adds some context beyond annotations, not rich context.

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; the scoping clarification sits in a tight parenthetical rather than bloating the text.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool does and its non-destructive nature. It omits prerequisites (must the notebook be open?) and behavior when a kernel already exists, which are relevant for a kernel lifecycle tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never addresses notebook_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, with a single, self-evidently named identifier parameter, the practical risk of misinterpretation is low, so an adequate-but-minimal 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start the notebook's Python kernel') and adds the timing nuance 'ahead of the first cell'. It is distinguishable from notebook_run (which runs code) and notebook_kernel_state, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'ahead of the first cell' implies the use case: pre-warming the kernel before executing cells. It never explicitly states when to use this instead of notebook_run or notebook_kernel_control, leaving the routing to inference from the tool name.

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