coda_get_control

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but omits details like what happens if the control is not found, any side effects, or data freshness guarantees.

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. However, its brevity sacrifices informative value; it is efficiently minimal but could be better structured with additional context.

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?

For a tool among many similar coda getters, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not describe the return value, error behavior, or relationship to siblings, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('ID of the doc', 'ID or name of the control'), covering 100% of parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value.

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 the action (Get) and the resource (value of a specific control). It distinguishes from siblings like coda_list_controls and other getters by specifying 'a specific control' via ID or name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coda_list_controls. The description is too sparse to help an agent decide the appropriate context.

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