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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it enumerates what the settings actually contain (copying allowed, editor permission changes, default access mode), which gives the agent a concrete sense of the payload.

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 response is compact and front-loaded: the purpose sentence leads, followed by a scope-clarifying sentence. Both sentences carry information and there is no filler, though the second sentence is slightly verbose for the value it adds.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming representative fields returned in the settings, so an agent knows roughly what to expect. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the comparison to sharing metadata left implicit.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents doc_id. The description adds no additional format or acquisition detail for the parameter, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the ACL settings for a Coda doc') and clarifies the scope is administrative doc-level settings rather than individual permission entries, which routes the agent away from coda_list_permissions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling coda_get_sharing_metadata, leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage context by contrasting administrative settings with permission entries, giving a degree of implicit guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over coda_get_sharing_metadata or coda_list_permissions, and offers no prerequisites or conditions.

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