coda_peek_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates a non-mutating 'peek' operation and states that it returns a limited number of lines. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe output format, or mention error conditions.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool is simple and the description conveys the essential action, but it lacks an explicit note about output format or return structure, especially since no output schema is provided. It is adequate for a minimal peek tool but leaves some gaps for an agent expecting clear return semantics.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (docId, pageIdOrName, numLines), so the schema provides the primary semantic detail. The description adds only marginal context (e.g., 'beginning' and 'limited'), but 100% schema coverage makes a baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 ('Peek') and resource ('page'), and clarifies the scope by saying 'beginning' and 'limited number of lines'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_content, although it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool is for quickly inspecting a page without retrieving all content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus get_page_content or list_pages. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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