Get Coda Row

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns 'Row with all column values' but does not discuss other behaviors like rate limits, auth requirements, or error conditions. It is consistent with annotations, so 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 very short, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and uses bullet-like args for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 5 parameters (3 required), schema coverage at 80%, and no output schema, the description provides the return type but lacks guidance on when to use the tool, required permissions, error scenarios, or handling of edge cases like invalid IDs. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 descriptions cover most parameters (80%), so the baseline is 3. However, the description incorrectly lists value_format as 'simple' or 'rich' while the schema includes 'simpleWithArrays'. This omission reduces clarity. The description adds value for response_format by explaining output types, but the error in value_format lowers the score.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific row from a Coda table by its ID or name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coda_list_rows (which lists all rows) and other mutation tools.

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 you know the row ID/name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like coda_list_rows. It provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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