notion_retrieve_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it retrieves unresolved comments and requires read capabilities, but omits details such as pagination behavior, error conditions (e.g., invalid block_id), or ordering of results. These gaps limit transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant text. Every word serves a 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It defines the core functionality and a key requirement, but does not explain return values or pagination behavior, leaving some context gaps.

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 100% description coverage, and each parameter includes helpful details (e.g., block_id formatting, format guidance). The tool description itself does not add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 it retrieves unresolved comments from a Notion page or block. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'comments' are specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like notion_retrieve_block or notion_retrieve_page, the focus on comments provides inherent distinction.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires the integration to have read comment capabilities') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not or comparison to other tools is given, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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