notebook_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a question is asked, with no mention of read-only behavior, authentication needs, output format, or side effects. The schema hints at multi-turn via conversation_id, but the description does not elaborate.

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?

One clear sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the essential verb and object. Every word 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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It lacks information about return values, the meaning of filtering via source_ids, how conversation_id works, and any limitations. Users need additional context to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, such as how source_ids filters the query or how conversation_id connects follow-ups, but it doesn't need to given full schema coverage.

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 ('ask a question') and resource ('sources in a notebook'), clearly distinguishing it from metadata tools like notebook_get or content retrieval tools like source_get_content. It could be more explicit about the natural-language Q&A aspect, but it's understandable.

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 when a question about notebook sources needs answering, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as source_get_content or notebook_describe. It also doesn't mention how conversation_id enables follow-up questions.

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