coda_get_control

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

The description states that the value reflects the current user-facing state, adding context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). No contradictions are present, and the description complements the annotations well.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential information. No fluff or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's behavior and return values adequately. It also mentions the relationship with a sibling tool, providing sufficient context for a getter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond implying the doc and control identification, but it does not introduce new semantic details. Baseline 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 specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'control', and identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the current value of a control in a Coda doc. It lists return fields and control types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like coda_list_controls.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool—to get a control's current value—and directs users to coda_list_controls for discovering controls. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but provides adequate context for the primary use case.

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