read_toggle

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It details recursive search, case-insensitive trimming, missing title behavior (returns available titles), warning for Notion AI meeting-notes blocks, and exclusion of transcripts. This is comprehensive and exceeds expectations.

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 concise with four sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers expected return behaviors: missing titles return available toggle titles, warnings for certain blocks, and exclusion of transcripts. For a simple read tool, this is thorough and leaves little ambiguity.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the 'title' search is case-insensitive and trimmed, and that search is recursive. This supplements the schema effectively, though the schema already mentions case-insensitivity.

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 reads a toggle by title from a page, specifying recursive search and matching of plain toggles and toggleable headings. It effectively communicates the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_block.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_block, archive_toggle). It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the behavior described.

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