notion_list_views

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the operation ('List') and the specific output fields, which is behavioral context. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only listing operation, 'List' and the output description give sufficient 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 with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and output; the second provides actionable integration with other tools. Every part earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 a single required parameter, an output schema present, and a clear description of what the tool returns and how to use it with sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and follow-up actions without needing to explain return values (which the output schema handles).

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 a single parameter (database_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description implies that database_id identifies the Notion database whose views are listed, but it does not provide format, validation, or any additional meaning beyond the schema itself. Given the simplicity of the parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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') with a clear resource ('views defined on a Notion database') and enumerates the output fields (name, type, id, saved filter/sorts). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like notion_query_database or notion_describe_database by focusing specifically on views.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool and how to chain it with related tools ('Use the view id with notion_query_view... or with notion_update_view / notion_delete_view'). This provides clear guidance on the tool's role and alternatives, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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