preview_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. 'Preview' implies read-only behavior and 'first N cells' clarifies the operational scope, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or what the returned preview contains.

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, tight sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this is too thin. It leaves unanswered the meaning of ref, the shape of the preview result, and how this relates to sibling notebook tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains max_cells by tying it to 'N', but the required ref parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent unsure what format or identifier is expected.

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 ('preview'), a clear resource ('notebook'), and a precise scope ('first N cells'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_notebook, which would retrieve the full notebook, and kernel_output, which concerns execution results.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention that this is for quick inspection before pulling or executing a notebook, nor does it exclude cases where full notebook content or kernel outputs are needed.

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