notebook_get_server_path_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it lists the type of information retrieved (allowed_roots, path style, validation, guidance), it does not explicitly state if the tool performs any side effects, requires authentication, or has constraints (e.g., path must exist). The description adds some insight but could be more transparent about side effects or safety.

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 front-loaded with 'Provides detailed server path configuration', immediately conveying purpose. It lists key specifics concisely without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context that the tool returns configuration details. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or any potential errors. For a highly specialized tool among many notebook siblings, it covers the main purpose but lacks completeness on usage outcomes.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, providing a basic description 'Path to analyze'. The tool description does not add further detail about the path parameter (e.g., format, expected location, relative vs absolute). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate that.

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 provides detailed server path configuration, listing specific aspects like allowed_roots, OS path style, project directory validation, and path construction guidance. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., notebook_read, notebook_validate) which deal with notebook content or validation, not server path context.

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 implies this tool is for gaining server path insights, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when path errors occur or for troubleshooting). There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool. The context from sibling tools is clear, but the description itself lacks explicit usage context.

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