list_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' and scope 'all artifacts' imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly address side effects, permissions, pagination, or limitations. It is adequately transparent for a simple listing tool but adds no behavioral detail beyond the operation itself.

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, focused sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the essential scope ('all artifacts') is included.

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?

This is a simple tool with one required parameter, a fully documented schema, and an output schema. The description, combined with the schema, provides everything an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. Additional details like pagination or error behavior are not essential for such a straightforward listing operation.

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 parameter notebook_id is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage detail about the parameter, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 operation (list) and resource (artifacts in a NotebookLM notebook). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_sources and generate_artifact because it names the artifact resource specifically.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to list existing artifacts for a notebook—but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like generate_artifact or download_artifact. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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