codebook.isOpen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's read-only nature ('Check') and implies it returns a boolean-like status, but doesn't specify the exact return format (e.g., true/false, open/closed state) or error conditions. It adds useful context about the CodeBook notebook view but lacks details on permissions or side effects.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the tool's function, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There is no wasted language, and the most important information (checking if CodeBook is active) 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?

For a simple status-checking tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could slightly improve by specifying the return type. Given the low complexity and lack of structured output documentation, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage context, which aligns with the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('CodeBook (notebook view)'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'codebook.open' and 'codebook.close' by focusing on status checking rather than state manipulation. It explicitly defines what 'active' means in this context.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('When CodeBook is open') and when to use an alternative ('node creation should use codebook.addCell for proper cell insertion'), directly naming the sibling tool 'codebook.addCell' as the preferred alternative for a specific scenario.

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