getNotebookTOC

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description implies a read-only operation (generating an overview) without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or read-only, leaving room for interpretation. Still, the intent is clear.

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 sentences and 20 words, concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter. Still, it is efficient and clear.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It states the purpose and value. It does not explain the output format, but that is unnecessary due to the presence of an output schema. The description is complete for its 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter described as "The ID of the notebook." The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the rule, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 it generates a table of contents for a notebook, listing sections and pages. This is distinct from sibling tools like listSections or listPages, which provide flat lists. The verb "Generate" and resource "table of contents for a notebook" specify exactly what the tool does.

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 usage for navigation and understanding structure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listSections or listPages. No exclusionary guidance or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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