get_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed information' clearly signals a read-only operation, but it does not specify what 'detailed' includes, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid ID), or any response format expectations. Adequate but shallow.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly: provide an ID and receive detailed notebook info. The lack of an output schema makes 'detailed information' somewhat vague, but this is a minor gap 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 description coverage is 100%, so the id parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the parameter's purpose without adding format, source, or usage details. Baseline 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 ('Get') + resource ('notebook') + scope ('specific notebook by ID'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_notebooks or search_notebooks. The intent is unambiguous.

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 'by ID' implies usage when a notebook ID is available, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_notebooks, search_notebooks, or select_notebook. Alternatives are not named or excluded, so the usage context remains implied rather than stated.

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