notebook_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds some useful behavioral context by enumerating the metadata and per-page details returned, implying a read-only metadata lookup, but it never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, side effects, or access requirements.

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 compact single sentence fragment with no wasted words. Its structure is slightly weak because it begins with a noun list rather than an action, but it is appropriately sized.

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 and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return formatting. However, it omits key context such as what the path parameter refers to and when this metadata retrieval is preferable to sibling 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?

The single required path parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention the path parameter at all. An agent must infer that path identifies the target notebook from the schema alone.

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 lists the information returned (title, dates, folder, per-page details), which implies retrieval for a notebook, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_notebooks or page_layout. The purpose is inferable but not crisply stated.

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 indication of when to use notebook_info versus list_notebooks, search_text, or the page-specific siblings. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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