get_doc_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed metadata') but does not explicitly state no side effects, auth requirements, or error handling (e.g., if doc not found). This is insufficient for full 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and parameter context. Every word is necessary, and no redundant information is present.

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 (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent without prior context.

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 0% coverage (no description for doc_id), requiring the description to compensate. It adds 'by its ID', clarifying the parameter's role, but lacks format or constraints (e.g., a valid Coda doc ID format). This meets the minimum but does not fully compensate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get detailed metadata') and resource ('specific Coda doc by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_docs which list all docs or other CRUD operations. It is not a tautology and provides a clear 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 implies usage when a user needs metadata for a specific doc, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_docs for a broader view). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so it is adequate but not directive.

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