List Notebooks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only listing operation scoped to the signed-in user, but it omits details such as authentication prerequisites, pagination, ordering, or which metadata beyond IDs is returned. Adequate for a simple list, but not rich.

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 clearly states the action, the resource, the scope, and the practical value of the result. There is no filler, no repetition of the title, and no content that duplicates the schema.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what is listed, for whom, and what the caller can do with the result (obtain notebook IDs for other tools). It does not mention auth or pagination, but those are not required to invoke a no-argument list call correctly.

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 input schema has no properties and there are zero required parameters, so there are no parameters needing clarification. The description's mention of notebook IDs is output-oriented rather than parameter-oriented; the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('OneNote notebooks'), and a clear scope ('accessible to the signed-in user'). It also states the key outcome — 'notebook IDs needed for other tools' — which clearly separates this from sibling tools like list_sections or get_notebook_tree.

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 description implies when to use it: when you need all notebooks and their IDs for downstream tools. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as get_notebook_tree, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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