notebook_create

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

The description states 'Creates a new, empty notebook file', indicating a write operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies the file is newly created and initially empty, but omits details like whether it overwrites an existing file, what the default kernel or metadata is, or what the return value is. It is accurate but lacks depth.

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 with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the exact purpose without elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. An agent would understand the basic action but lacks information about file format, overwrite behavior, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a simple tool this is acceptable, but more detail could help.

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%, with the 'path' parameter already described in the schema as 'Path where the notebook will be created'. The description does not add extra meaning such as allowed extensions, path patterns, or behavior relative to existing files. The baseline for full coverage is 3; the description provides no additional value for the parameter.

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-resource pair ('Creates a new, empty notebook file'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'notebook_delete', 'notebook_rename', and other notebook operations. It is slightly less precise than a 5 because it doesn't specify the format (e.g., .ipynb) or whether it creates the file in an explicit location relative to a workspace.

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 tool's name and the presence of many sibling tools for notebook operations strongly imply this is the creation tool. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as importing, copying, or opening an existing notebook. There is no discussion of prerequisites (e.g., whether the directory must exist) or when not to use it.

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