List Coda Columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it lists columns, returns IDs and types, and the response format parameter. It does not contradict annotations and adds value by explaining the use case.

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 concise: two sentences plus 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence serves a purpose. Information is front-loaded and well-structured. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description properly explains returns: 'List of columns with id, name, type, format.' This is sufficient for a simple list tool. It does not cover pagination or errors, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations (readOnly, idempotent), it is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The 'Args:' section in the description repeats parameter info but adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'response_format: markdown or json' is already in schema). No extra semantic depth.

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 'List all columns in a Coda table, including their IDs and types.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (columns in a Coda table), and key output (IDs, types). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'coda_get_column' by indicating it lists all columns.

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 explicitly states it is 'Useful to get column IDs before reading/writing rows, since Coda rows use column IDs as keys.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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