List notebooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the specific scope (owned by the authenticated user), but provides no details on pagination, ordering, or format. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded, conveying the core action and scope.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what will be returned. However, it omits details like output format or ordering, which could be helpful but are not critical given the lack of 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?

Since there are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by specifying what is listed (every notebook owned by the user). This is sufficient for a parameterless tool, earning above baseline.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'notebooks', and the scope 'owned by the authenticated user'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like notebook_create, notebook_delete, etc., which perform different actions.

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 retrieving all notebooks, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling tools like notebook_raw might have different output. The lack of exclusions or context for selection limits guidance.

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