notion_plan_domain_intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'runs' an action, without describing side effects, destructiveness, or authorization needs. The behavioral traits are insufficiently communicated.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action and parameter types. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's role in a planning system and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the expected outcome or scope of 'domain intelligence'. It lacks this context, leaving the tool's purpose incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, no examples or constraints are provided, limiting usefulness.

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 runs a 'notion domain agent action' called 'plan_domain_intelligence', distinguishing it from sibling tools in other domains. However, it does not clarify what 'plan_domain_intelligence' specifically does within the Notion context, leaving its purpose somewhat vague.

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 mentions routing through a dispatcher under user scope but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools for different domains, the lack of context for choosing this one is a significant gap.

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