Get Coda Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context by specifying the return fields (id, name, type, rowCount, browserLink). This informs the agent of the output structure without repeating annotation information. No contradictions.

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 three sentences: first sentence states the purpose, then a compact parameter list, then a clear return description. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It doesn't explicitly address error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple read operation, it is sufficient. The lack of output schema is compensated by the return description.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists parameters and their types but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The mention of response_format options is already in the schema with default and enum. The return information is not parameter semantics. Thus, minimal added 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 states 'Get metadata for a specific table or view' with a clear verb (get) and resource (table/view metadata). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like coda_list_tables (which lists all tables) and coda_get_table is for a single table's metadata.

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 when to use (when you need metadata of a specific table or view) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, some guidance on distinguishing from coda_list_tables or coda_get_row would be helpful.

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