notebook_list

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'list[s] all notebooks' implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not mention potential pagination, performance characteristics, or whether it returns all notebooks at once.

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 with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and included data, earning its place with no wasted words.

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 parameterless list tool, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns ('sources and metadata'). However, without an output schema, more detail on the return format (e.g., list of notebook IDs with nested metadata) would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not add any parameter-related information.

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 'List all notebooks' with a specific resource and adds context about included data ('sources and metadata'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'notebook_query' by indicating it returns all notebooks without filters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'notebook_query' or 'mind_map_list'. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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