list_my_kernels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it only states the operation at face value. It does not disclose authentication needs to resolve 'your,' pagination behavior, default sorting, what metadata is returned, or whether it covers only owned (not team) notebooks. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified — a brief note on pagination or ownership scoping would earn its place without bloating the text.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the full context. It explains neither the meaning of page/limit/sort_by nor the return shape, leaving an agent to guess at defaults and result format. The core purpose is clear, but too much operational context is missing for a tool with three tunable parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (page, limit, sort_by). The parameter names and the sort_by enum are somewhat self-explanatory, which mitigates the gap, but the description itself adds zero semantic value beyond what the schema already exposes. With low coverage, the description was obligated to compensate and did not.

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 ('List') plus a clearly scoped resource ('your Kaggle notebooks'), so an agent immediately understands it enumerates the authenticated user's own kernels. The possessive 'your' distinguishes it from the sibling search_kernels, though it does not name that alternative directly. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'your Kaggle notebooks' implies this is for the caller's own resources, which lightly hints at scope versus search_kernels or list_team_submissions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, what circumstances favor an alternative, or any exclusions. The entire usage burden is left to inference.

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