notebook_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search behavior (matches + snippets) but omits details about limitations (e.g., max snippets, case sensitivity behavior, what happens with no matches, or performance for large notebooks). It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and result format with zero wasted words. Every element communicates essential information efficiently.

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?

For a 3-parameter search tool with no enums, nested objects, or output schema, the description covers the core behavior (search matches + snippets) adequately. It could benefit from mentioning the output structure or handling of no results, but overall it's sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description adds the critical context that results include 'contextual snippets', which explains the value of the output beyond just showing matches. This provides semantic meaning about how found cells are presented, going beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions offer.

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 the specific verb 'searches' and the resource 'cells in a notebook', clearly distinguishing it from siblings. It also specifies the output format ('contextual snippets'), which adds precision. No other sibling tool performs search within a notebook, making this differentiation explicit.

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 search functionality but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like notebook_read (for reading entire notebooks) or notebook_validate (for checking structure). For such a large sibling set, more specific usage context would be helpful.

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