notebook_get_definition

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds two useful behavioral traits beyond annotations: the operation is long-running, and it writes definition files to an output directory. This helps set expectations for latency and side effects, with no contradiction.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the two most important operational details: long-running and file output.

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 read-only definition-export tool with three fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description gives enough context: what is retrieved, that it is long-running, and where output goes. It does not explain completion semantics, but that is a minor gap for this simple tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that outputDirectoryPath is where definition files are written, but it does not add material meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear action and resource: 'Get the content/definition of a notebook.' It also notes the operation is long-running and writes definition files, which adds scope. It does not explicitly compare against the sibling notebook_get, so differentiation relies on the name and the 'definition' + 'writes files' details.

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 about when to use this tool instead of notebook_get or notebook_get_definition variants for other resources. The 'long-running' note and output-directory behavior imply a use case, but no alternative is named and no selection criteria are provided.

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