find_notebooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals case-insensitive contains matching, default limit 10, raw notebook fields (id/name/icon/closed), and the need for caller-side exact-match filtering. The minor inconsistency between 'raw info' and the simplified Returns field list prevents a higher score.

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 definition is well organized into 适用场景/使用方法/注意事项/Args/Returns and front-loads its purpose. There is some redundancy between the usage bullets and the Args block, but the overall structure is compact and scannable.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters, it covers use cases, filtering behavior, return shape, and the exact-match caveat. An agent can correctly invoke it and interpret results; the only real gap is the ambiguity about whether returned fields are only name+id or the full raw set.

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%, but the description fully compensates: name is documented as optional fuzzy/case-insensitive matching and 'omit to list all', while limit is documented as a max count with default 10. This adds exactly the meaning the input schema lacks.

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 opens with '查找并列出思源笔记中的笔记本' – a specific verb (list) and resource (notebooks). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like find_documents by targeting notebook objects and mentions returning IDs for use by other tools.

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 '适用场景' section states concrete cases: obtaining all notebook IDs for later write/query tools and light name filtering. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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