notebook_share_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the action and return values but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. Being a 'get' operation, it's likely safe, but transparency is minimal.

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 extremely concise: two lines covering purpose and parameters. No extraneous text, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it does provide a useful summary (is_public, access_level, collaborators, public_link). This makes the tool easy to understand without consulting the schema. Missing any context about when this should be used is the only gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents 'notebook_id' as 'Notebook UUID,' adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type. For a single parameter, this is helpful and clear.

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 'Get current sharing settings and collaborators,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notebook_share_invite, notebook_share_batch, and notebook_share_public that are for modification, not reading.

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 this is for reading sharing status, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternative share tools. The context from sibling names helps, but the description lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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