notebook_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the response includes 'sources', which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe any side effects, or mention error handling or authentication needs. The verb 'Get' implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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 description is a single sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and mentions that sources are included, but it does not list what other details are returned or clarify the difference from 'notebook_describe'. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally complete but leaves room for more context.

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 schema already fully documents the sole parameter 'notebook_id' as 'The notebook ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'specific notebook' adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, effectively reinforcing that the ID identifies a single notebook. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('details of a specific notebook'), and a key aspect ('including its sources'). It is specific and straightforward, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'notebook_describe', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'notebook_describe' or any other sibling, nor does it state prerequisites or when this tool should be preferred. The only implied usage is that you need a specific notebook ID, which is weak guidance.

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