Coda Get Acl Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by enumerating what the settings contain (copying allowed, editors changing permissions, default access mode) and by clarifying these are doc-level administrative flags rather than per-user grants. No auth or rate-limit detail is added, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place by clarifying return content and scope. Slightly more prose than strictly necessary for a one-parameter getter, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description informally previews the return content. Between the full schema coverage, annotations and this text, an agent has what it needs, with only the lack of explicit alternative-tool routing as a minor gap.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents doc_id. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond naming the doc, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the ACL settings for a Coda doc') and then explicitly distinguishes the target from individual permission entries, which separates it from siblings like coda_list_permissions. It names the resource clearly but does not name the sibling tool directly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that these are 'administrative settings, not individual permission entries' hints that permission-entry tools are the alternative, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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