Get Notebook Tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mapping behavior and the optional page-count cost ('Costs one extra request per 100 pages per section, so it is slow on large accounts'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose the return shape, whether it includes empty sections, or any auth requirements. The cost disclosure is a solid addition, but the overall behavioral context is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key use case. The cost warning is placed in the parameter description, not the main description, keeping the main text tight. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only mapping tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the use case, and the main cost caveat. It doesn't describe the return format, but the tool's name and purpose make the tree structure predictable. The missing return shape is a minor gap, not a critical one.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context for includePageCounts (cost and slowness) beyond the schema's 'Costs one extra request...' note, but the schema already covers the semantics. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Maps') and resource ('OneNote structure: notebooks, section groups, sections with IDs'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the tools it feeds (list_pages, create_page, find_pages). An agent can tell it apart from list_notebooks or list_sections without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here when you need section IDs for list_pages, create_page, or find_pages.' This gives a clear when-to-use directive and names the downstream tools that depend on it. It also implies when not to use it (when you only need notebooks, use list_notebooks), though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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