List Coda Pages

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, name, type, browserLink) and pagination behavior via page_token. No contradictions 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 with a clear structure: a one-line summary, an 'Args' section listing parameters with types and defaults, and a 'Returns' section describing output. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 read-only list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains pagination, required vs optional parameters, output format options, and the structure of return data. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description clarifies the purpose of page_token ('from previous response') and response_format ('markdown for human-readable, json for machine-readable'), adding meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 pages in a Coda document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coda_get_page (single page) and coda_create_page (create) by focusing on listing.

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 provides context on pagination parameters (limit, page_token) and output format selection, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., coda_list_tables) or exclusion criteria.

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