notebook_read_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying safety. The verb 'Reads' indicates a non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose what specific metadata is returned, potential errors, or any expectations about the notebook path. The read-only nature is implied, but additional context about the return value would improve 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope without redundancy.

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 is simple with one fully documented parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a metadata dictionary). Given the absence of return-value documentation, the description is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the output format from the tool name and sibling context.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'path' as 'Path to the notebook' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the tool's overall scope, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('top-level notebook metadata'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_read_cell_metadata and notebook_edit_metadata. The scope 'top-level' is particularly informative.

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 usage through the word 'top-level', which hints that this is for notebook-level metadata rather than cell-level metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_read_cell_metadata.

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