Coda Get Doc

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 genuine behavioral boundary context by enumerating returned metadata (name, owner email, folder, timestamps, doc size) and stating what is out of scope. It omits auth/permission requirements or rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, return contents second, and the disambiguation/alternative pointer last. No filler and nothing buried.

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-value detail is not strictly required, yet the description still summarizes the payload and rules out the common misexpectation (page/table data). For a single-param read tool this is fully sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (doc_id) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description repeats the sourcing hint from the schema without adding format or validation detail; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 with scope: 'Get metadata for a single Coda doc by ID.' This clearly separates it from coda_list_docs (plural listing) and from coda_get_page/coda_get_table, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 bounds the tool with a negative case — 'Does NOT return page content or table data — use coda_list_pages or coda_list_tables for those' — and names the alternative tools that supply doc_id (coda_list_docs, coda_resolve_browser_link). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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