inspect_notebook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what information the tool provides (version, sections, counts, root evaluation), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention return format. 'Summarise' implies no mutation, but it's not explicit, so the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded sentence that specifies the action first and then lists the key outputs. Every word contributes to the meaning with no redundancy 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose and the expected summary contents. There is no output schema, but the description lists what the summary includes, so an agent knows what to expect. It does not discuss error cases or required file existence, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% (the only parameter 'notebook' is described as 'Path to the .ntop file'). The description mentions the notebook but does not add any semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('.ntop notebook'), and enumerates exactly what the summary includes (version, sections, counts, root block evaluation). It is distinct from siblings like run_notebook (execution) and read_graph (graph reading), so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 a high-level summary of a notebook is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use X instead when...'), but the context is clear and no misleading guidance is given.

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