list_cells

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. It clearly states the exact fields returned and explicitly notes that cell data values are excluded, which clarifies scope. While it doesn't mention side effects (none expected for a listing operation), the description is transparent about output limitations.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then enumerates the return fields without unnecessary words. It also includes a concise note about the absence of cell data, making every word useful.

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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return payload, including the omission of data values. It doesn't specify ordering or pagination, but those are not critical for a basic listing operation. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of buffer_id referencing the notebook_context prefix. The tool description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' combined with the resource 'cells' and scoping clause 'in a notebook'. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cell by listing the exact return fields (id, type, preview, position, mode, last-run status), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cell (for a single cell's details) or add_cell/update_cell/delete_cell for modifications. It lacks any mention of typical use cases or exclusions, so an agent must rely on sibling names to infer appropriate usage.

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