coda_get_doc

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

The description lists the exact fields returned (name, owner email, folder, timestamps, doc size) and states what is not included (page content, table data). Annotations already mark it as readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the description adds useful context beyond those. No hidden behaviors are disclosed, but for a simple metadata retrieval it is sufficient.

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 concise at three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies scope and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool returns, what it does not, how to get parameters, and alternatives for other use cases.

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 input schema has one parameter (doc_id) with 100% description coverage. The description adds context by explaining how to obtain the doc_id (from coda_list_docs or coda_resolve_browser_link), which goes beyond the schema.

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 'Get metadata for a single Coda doc by ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does NOT return page content or table data, and names specific alternatives (coda_list_pages, coda_list_tables).

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (when you need doc metadata) and when not to (when you need pages or tables), and provides clear alternatives. It also tells how to obtain the doc_id from other tools (coda_list_docs, coda_resolve_browser_link).

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