notebook_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Get' matches this and introduces no contradiction. It adds no further behavioral context such as return format, errors, or permissions, but for a simple read-only getter this is acceptable with annotation coverage.

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?

At seven words, the description is appropriately minimal and front-loaded with the core verb and object. There is no redundant text or restatement of 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?

The tool is low-complexity with only two fully described parameters and read-only annotations, so the description is almost sufficient. However, with no output schema, 'details' is vague, and the presence of sibling notebook_get_definition creates ambiguity about whether this returns metadata or definition content.

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 both notebookId and workspaceId described, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying the notebook is identified by its ID, which matches the baseline expectation.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('notebook'), and scope ('specific'), clearly identifying this as a lookup operation rather than list/create/update/delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling notebook_get_definition; 'details' is left to inference.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as notebook_list (to find notebooks) or notebook_get_definition (to fetch notebook content). The 'specific notebook' phrasing implies a target ID, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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