notebook_get_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, safe to call multiple times, or if any permissions are needed. The lack of clarity on side effects or limitations reduces transparency.

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 that is clear and to the point. It front-loads the key information (what the tool does and what data it returns). While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), it remains efficient and avoids unnecessary 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?

The tool has a simple one-parameter schema with no output schema and no annotations. The description is vague about 'general information'—it lists examples but does not specify the exact structure of the response. Given the lack of supplementary structured data, the description should provide more detail on return format or limits to be considered complete.

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 input schema provides a description for the single 'path' parameter ('Path to the notebook'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints (e.g., supported formats, absolute vs relative paths). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the parameter adequately.

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 tool retrieves general information and lists specific examples like cell count, metadata, kernel, and language info. This distinguishes it from siblings like notebook_get_cell_count (only count) and notebook_read_metadata (only metadata). The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'general information' are 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 versus its many siblings (e.g., notebook_read, notebook_get_cell_count). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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