get_notebook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can look up by multiple identifier types, which is useful, but it does not state what happens on ambiguity, missing resources, or what the return value looks like. For a simple read-only getter this is adequate but minimal.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the lookup scope is stated in a compact list. Every word 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to make a correct call: retrieve a notebook by id, title, or document uid. It does not describe the response shape, but for a getter that is generally assumed, and the low complexity keeps the bar modest.

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% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds almost nothing beyond the schema—'document uid' roughly repeats 'ai_document_id', and 'id, title' is already present in the parameter description. No significant extra meaning is provided.

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 identifies the operation (get), the resource (a Warp notebook / plan), and the lookup keys (id, title, or document uid). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_notebooks or get_memory by naming the unique resource type, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where another tool like list_notebooks or search would be more appropriate. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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