notebook_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states what metadata is returned and that it lists all notebooks, but does not mention pagination (beyond the schema), authentication requirements, or what happens with no results. This is adequate but minimal for a read/list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the primary purpose and metadata fields. It does not mention pagination behavior or ownership scope details, but the schema covers the parameter and the tool is simple enough that these gaps are minor.

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 fully describes the only parameter (max_results with default 100), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, and per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline score of 3. The description does not compensate further.

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 tool's action ('List') and resource ('all NotebookLM notebooks'), and specifies the metadata included (title, sources count, ownership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_get or notebook_describe, which likely target a single notebook.

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 usage for retrieving a collection of notebooks, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like notebook_get for single-notebook retrieval or provide exclusions. Since the context is clear but lacks explicit alternative guidance, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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