list_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so exceptionally. It explains live-only field semantics, clarifies that absence of those fields never means 'not refreshing' or 'not blocked,' and explicitly states that refresh does not change last_run_status. This prevents serious misinterpretations.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: the main purpose is front-loaded, and the dense live-only clarification is essential for correct interpretation. No filler or redundant repetition of schema content appears.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers what an agent needs: the resource, accepted parameter, returned fields, live-only field semantics, and an explicit statement about what is not returned. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the buffer_id parameter and its source prefix. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the notebook context, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list cells in a notebook. Enumerates the fields returned and explicitly says 'No cell data values,' which disambiguates it from sibling cell-content tools like get_cell.

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 context of use is clear—listing notebook cell metadata—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The 'No cell data values' statement implies get_cell would be needed for content, but that is left to inference rather than stated.

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