List Coda Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by disclosing that the tool returns a list of docs with specific fields, supports pagination via page_token, and accepts a query filter. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a two-sentence purpose, then a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, parameters with defaults, and pagination. It lacks sibling differentiation and error handling, but is otherwise complete given the annotations and schema coverage.

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 goes beyond schema by clearly explaining each parameter's purpose in the 'Args' block (e.g., query for keyword search, page_token for pagination, response_format for output type), adding meaning about range and usage.

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 ('List and search') and the resource ('Coda documents accessible by the API token'), and specifies the return fields (titles, IDs, owner, dates, URLs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like coda_get_doc and coda_search_docs by focusing on listing multiple docs, but does not explicitly differentiate from coda_search_docs, which may also list/search.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coda_search_docs). It mentions accessibility by the API token, which implies a scope, but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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