notion_outline

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the return shape (depth/type/id/preview), which is valuable, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. But it omits whether only top-level blocks are returned, ordering, pagination/size limits, and permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the output contract is front-loaded and the follow-up action tip follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by describing the returned tuple. But for a block-listing tool it leaves open nesting depth semantics, completeness (all blocks vs top-level only), and size limits, which an agent would want before calling.

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?

There is a single optional 'page' parameter with 100% schema description coverage already explaining the URL/id and the active-tab default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does the work; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (page blocks) and even specifies the exact output tuple format [depth, type, id, first 80 chars]. It is distinguishable from siblings like notion_read or notion_screenshot, though it never explicitly says how it differs from notion_read.

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 second sentence, 'Use the ids for insert/delete,' gives downstream guidance pointing at the notion_insert and notion_delete_blocks siblings, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-notion_read guidance or stated prerequisites.

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