notion_list_workspaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists 'cached' workspaces, hinting at a local, read-only operation. However, it does not discuss authentication, side effects, or limitations such as whether it requires network access or a configured Notion app. The description is adequate but lacks depth, scoring a 3.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. It includes the action, resource, and what is returned, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns: a list of workspaces with member names and emails. While it could specify the format (e.g., JSON array), the current level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. A score of 4 reflects this completeness without being overly verbose.

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 are zero parameters, so the input schema provides no information. According to the scoring guidelines, when there are 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning but does provide context on what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb (Lists) and explicitly names the resource (Notion workspaces cached on this Mac). It also details what is included (members with names and emails), making the tool's purpose very clear. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like notion_list_databases and notion_list_pages by specifying 'workspaces'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice. For a simple tool with no parameters, the lack of guidelines is acceptable but not exemplary, hence a score of 3.

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