notebook_rev

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is read-only, describes what the rev is (a short hash of on-disk content), and explains the concurrency guard mechanism. It also mentions that mutating tools return a new rev. However, it does not cover error cases or behavior when the path does not exist, but for a simple read operation, this is sufficient.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then provides necessary detail about the rev token and usage. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, the return value, and how to use it in conjunction with other tools. It could mention the data type of rev, but that is implicit. Overall, it covers the essential information needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description mentions the only parameter 'path' in the context of returning path and rev. However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints beyond that. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the minimal extra value warrants a score of 3, as it partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the notebook's current revision token.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('revision token'), and the context (for a notebook). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are about creating, editing, or reading cells, while this tool is uniquely about obtaining a revision token.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: to obtain a revision token for optimistic concurrency control when performing mutations. It details how to pass the rev as 'expected_rev' and notes that mutating tools return a new rev, allowing chaining. This provides clear usage context without needing to reference alternatives.

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