list_notebooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists all notebooks and returns a JSON array with notebook_id, name, created_at, and source_count, giving the agent a concrete expectation of the result. It does not discuss pagination or error behavior, but these are less critical for a simple read-only enumeration.

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 short sections with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return format is presented in a compact, scannable way. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the scope, the return type, and the exact fields returned. An output schema exists for structured return values, so no further documentation of return semantics is required. An agent can invoke this tool correctly with no open questions.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the schema itself is already complete. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate; per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, no compensation is needed.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('NotebookLM notebooks'), and the scope ('all'), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sources or create_notebook. The return fields further clarify that this is a high-level notebook enumeration tool.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need all notebooks, not sources, transcripts, or artifacts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter list operation the context is unambiguous enough that an agent will not confuse it with siblings.

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