notion_list_views

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication details, but omits critical information such as whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, pagination behavior, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a list operation.

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 short but includes extraneous routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.') that is likely unnecessary for tool invocation decisions. The core statement is one sentence; the rest could be omitted. It is somewhat concise but not optimally structured for an agent.

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 existence of an output schema, return values are partially covered, but the description lacks any context about the tool's behavior, parameter semantics, or usage. The tool is relatively complex (requires a JSON argument string) but the description provides almost no information to help an agent invoke it correctly, making it incomplete.

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 input schema has a single 'arguments' parameter of type string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely restates that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no details about expected structure, required keys, or examples. The agent cannot determine how to populate the arguments correctly without external knowledge of the Notion API.

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 states it is a 'list_views' operation for the Notion connector, clearly indicating the verb 'list' and resource 'views'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like notion_get_view or notion_query_view, nor does it explain what a view is or the scope of listing (e.g., views of a database). The name itself provides moderate clarity, but the description adds little additional 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as notion_get_view or notion_query_view. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where listing views is appropriate. The absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer solely from the name.

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