list_notebooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not mention pagination, result limits, default snippet behavior, ordering, or whether the result is a flat list versus a tree.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical clarification about agent plans is useful context, though slightly informal.

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 with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, and the core purpose is clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully cover return shape, pagination, or when to favor sibling tools, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List Warp Drive notebooks / agent plans.' It also adds context that full plans live in these notebooks, which helps an agent understand what the resource represents. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or get_notebook, so it stops short of a 5.

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 such as search, get_notebook, or list_memories. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.

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