get_notebook_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is RPC-backed with no browser and is cheaper than asking a question, but it does not mention authentication, permissions, rate limits, or whether the read has any side effects.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most relevant cost/architecture context.

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 a simple read operation with only two optional parameters, and an output schema exists. The description explains the conceptual return (summary and suggested questions) plus the RPC/cost tradeoff; it omits some auth or error context but is otherwise complete for this complexity.

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 two optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning such as when to prefer notebook_id over notebook_url, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a notebook’s own summary of its sources and the questions it suggests asking.' It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling notebook_ask by framing it as a cheaper way to find out what is in a notebook.

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 'Cheaper than asking a question to find out what is in there' gives a clear usage context and implicitly routes agents away from notebook_ask for an overview. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the intended use case is clear.

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