list_sources

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation and 'all sources' indicates unscoped retrieval, but the description does not address potential pagination, authorization, error behavior, or result limits. It is minimally transparent rather than richly informative.

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 concise sentence that fronts the action and object immediately. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

Given the tool has only one required parameter, no enums, and an output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The only notable gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, but the simplicity of the operation makes that gap minor.

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%, and the only parameter, notebook_id, is already documented as 'ID of the notebook.' The description adds that the tool lists sources in a notebook, but it does not add any format, default, or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb, 'List,' with a clear resource, 'all sources,' and a clear scope, 'in a NotebookLM notebook.' This readily distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notebooks or add_source because it names both the object type and the container.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs to retrieve the sources attached to a particular notebook, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools such as list_notebooks and add_source establish context, yet no direct comparison or routing guidance is provided.

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