Coda Get Control

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 genuine context by defining what a control is (sliders, select lists, date pickers, text inputs, buttons) and clarifying that the value reflects the current user-facing state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by tightly scoped sentences that each add a distinct piece of information (return fields, control types, state semantics, discovery sibling). 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 to explain return values and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not repeat those. It supplies the remaining semantic context (what a control is, what the value means) that an agent needs.

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 both parameters (doc_id, control_id_or_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail for either, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('control in a Coda doc'), then enumerates return fields (name, ID, type, current value). It also names the sibling coda_list_controls so the agent can distinguish lookup-by-identity from discovery.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to coda_list_controls for discovery, which clarifies when this tool is the right choice. It lacks any explicit when-not or prereq guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.

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