ListNotebooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all connected notebooks, which implies a read-only operation and defines its scope. It does not mention return format, potential errors, or prerequisites, but for a simple 0-parameter list tool this is adequate though not richly transparent.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The primary action 'List all connected notebooks' is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential what and when. It could mention what specific identifiers or details are returned, but for a straightforward enumeration tool the missing return format is a minor gap, not a critical omission.

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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaningful context about what the result represents (all connected notebooks) without needing to explain parameter syntax. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a 0-parameter tool.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all connected notebooks', making the tool's function unambiguous. It adds usage context by saying to see available notebooks before targeting a specific one, which helps differentiate it from notebook-specific operations. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to see which notebooks are available before targeting a specific one.' This implies that it is the preliminary enumeration step for later notebook-specific actions. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives explicitly, but the guidance is clear and contextually sufficient.

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