notebook_get_cell_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, omitting information such as whether it requires an open notebook, counts all cell types, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded, earning its place by stating the core purpose. However, it is perhaps too minimal, lacking details that could be added without significant verbosity. Still, it is not wasteful.

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's simplicity (one parameter, simple return value), the description is minimally adequate. It states the return value but does not clarify the data type, edge cases (e.g., empty notebook), or error handling. Without an output schema, more detail 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the 'path' parameter is described as 'Path to the notebook'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does not elaborate on path format, validation, or error cases.

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 'Returns the total number of cells' clearly states the verb (returns) and resource (total number of cells), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_read (returns content) or notebook_get_info (returns metadata). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is a lightweight operation for getting a count without fetching the full notebook, nor does it state any prerequisites or limitations.

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