notion_weekly_status_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or what changes occur (e.g., creation of a document, update of a status). The tool likely generates or modifies data, but this is not stated.

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 (two sentences plus parameter lines), but the first sentence is nearly tautological with the tool name. It includes implementation details about routing and scope that may not be necessary for an AI agent. The structure is acceptable but could be more impactful with clearer separation of purpose and behavior.

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 has two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the weekly status report action does, what the output contains, or when it is appropriate to use. The agent would need external knowledge to understand this tool's role.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds descriptions for both parameters: 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this provides some meaning, the descriptions are vague and do not specify expected formats, defaults, or examples, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 the verb 'Run' and the resource 'notion domain agent action weekly_status_report', indicating it executes a specific action. However, it does not explain what a 'weekly status report' is or what the action accomplishes, leaving the purpose vague for an AI agent. It distinguishes from siblings only by naming the specific action, but lacks clarity on its function.

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 other Notion tools or alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the AI agent without clear directions for selection.

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