coda_get_acl_settings

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), which is appropriate, but with no annotations, it should disclose more: e.g., whether authentication is required, what happens if docId is invalid, or any rate limits.

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 very concise (6 words) but at the cost of omitting essential details. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, yet lacks sufficient information to be considered appropriately sized.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return values, error scenarios, or any behavioral context needed for proper use.

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 only parameter, docId, has a minimal schema description ('ID of the doc'). The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter format, source, or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should 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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('ACL settings for a doc'), which is clear and specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coda_get_doc or coda_get_sharing_metadata, but lacks a brief explanation of what ACL settings are.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as coda_get_permissions or coda_get_sharing_metadata. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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