notebook_kernel_state

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by listing the six possible states (stopped, starting, idle, busy, error, dead), which tells the agent what to expect back. It does not explain how states transition, whether the call blocks, or what happens for an unknown notebook_id.

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 tight sentence with the states front-loaded and zero filler. It is minimal without being wasteful, though the fragment omits any verb tying it to an action.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description partially fills the return-value gap by enumerating the state values, which is the key thing an agent needs. However it omits any guidance on usage, error behavior, or how the state maps to next actions, leaving notable gaps.

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% and the single parameter (notebook_id) is left entirely unexplained in the description. The name is fairly self-evident, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation as the rubric requires at low coverage.

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 states a specific resource (the notebook kernel's state) and enumerates the exact possible values it can take, so an agent knows it is a state-read, not a start/stop/control action. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, and it does not name the sibling tools it differs from (notebook_kernel_start, notebook_kernel_control), but the intent is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent can infer it should be called to check kernel status before running a notebook, but the description never says so, nor does it mention polling or when to prefer notebook_poll.

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