get_notebook_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so excellently. It details the semantics of the 'type' field (markdown vs SQL omission), preview truncation at 120 chars, the presence of 'preview_truncated' and 'full_length' flags, and explicitly states what is not returned (cell data values, columns/rows/count).

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 concise yet information-dense, with three purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential details about type semantics and preview truncation. No word is wasted, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a remarkably complete picture of the tool's behavior. It covers what is included (layout, cells, previews, type, statuses), what is excluded (data values, columns/rows/count), and critical edge-case behavior (preview truncation flags). This is more than sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 only parameter, buffer_id, is not explicitly explained. The description refers to 'a notebook' but does not state that buffer_id is the notebook's identifier or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly; it only provides indirect contextual meaning, not explicit parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool provides a 'full structural snapshot of a notebook' and enumerates its contents (layout, cells with previews, kind via type, last-run statuses). It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly excluding cell data values and columns/rows/count, making its specific role 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is appropriate for structural/snapshot needs, not for cell content or write-back. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_cell), but the exclusions and the caveat 'a preview is never a cell's real content to write back' strongly imply the correct use cases and boundaries.

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