coda_get_acl_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the doc-level scope and examples of settings, which is valuable beyond annotations. 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides illustrative examples and scope clarification. Efficient and well-structured.

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 the single parameter, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what administrative settings are and contrasts with individual permissions, covering essential context for an admin tool.

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?

The parameter doc_id is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves ACL settings for a Coda doc, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It lists examples of returned settings (copying, editor permissions, default access) and distinguishes from siblings by noting these are administrative settings, not individual permission entries.

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 appropriate use by contrasting admin-level settings with individual permissions, suggesting an alternative tool (like coda_list_permissions) for the latter. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or provide when-not scenarios, leaving minor room for ambiguity.

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