notion_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The enumerated inspection targets effectively describe what the agent will learn (workspace, tabs, access level), which is the most important behavioral detail. However, it never explicitly states that the call is non-mutating, nor what happens if the connection is down or what the result looks like on failure.

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 short clauses, zero filler, with the operational instruction ('Call first') front-loaded after the scope statement. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a zero-param diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies enough: it names the diagnostic categories so the agent knows what information to expect. It is only slightly incomplete in not covering failure behavior or how to react if the check reports a problem.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space re-explaining an empty schema.

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 ('Check the connection') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: debug port, workspace, open tabs, active page, access level. That is far more informative than the opaque name notion_status. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the diagnostic framing makes it clearly distinct from the action tools (notion_read, notion_open, notion_launch).

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?

'Call first' gives explicit ordering guidance, which is the key usage decision for a status tool. There are no stated when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the priming instruction is clear and actionable.

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