notion_list_files_on_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns block IDs and filenames, and implies it does not download files (by directing to another tool). It does not mention any side effects, permissions, pagination, or failure modes, but for a read-only listing operation, the core behavior is adequately covered. The score reflects that it adds some context but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second sentence explains the return value and next step. It is front-loaded with the key information and every sentence 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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, simple listing) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells what is listed, what is returned, and how to use the result. The main gap is the lack of parameter format details, but for a tool this simple, the description covers the essential context well.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining the page_id format (e.g., UUID vs URL). The only param is page_id, and the description merely says 'on a Notion page', which is redundant with the tool's name. The description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema field name implies.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: all file/image/pdf/video/audio blocks on a Notion page. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the return of block IDs and filenames for use with notion_download_file, setting it apart from search or upload tools. This is a precise, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to identify files on a page for subsequent download. It explicitly directs the user to use the returned block IDs with notion_download_file, which is a concrete usage guideline. However, it does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), but the context is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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