Get Coda Doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description adds that it returns metadata fields (name, owner, pages count, browserLink), which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise at 4 lines, covering purpose, parameters, and return value without any unnecessary information. Each sentence adds value.

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 (read-only, single resource retrieval) and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what it does, what inputs it requires, and what it returns. No output schema needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so schema already documents both parameters. Description restates them and adds default value for response_format and example doc_id. This adds marginal value, baseline 3 is 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves metadata for a specific Coda document by ID. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata for a Coda document), distinguishing it from sibling tools like coda_list_docs (list all docs) and coda_get_doc_schema (get schema).

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 implicitly indicates usage for retrieving a single document's metadata. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough. Could include when-not-to-use guidance, but it's nearly sufficient.

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