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 real behavioral value by enumerating exactly what comes back (name, owner email, folder, timestamps, doc size) and what does not, which is the main ambiguity for a metadata getter. It omits auth/permission requirements, but for a read-only call that is a minor gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return contents and then exclusions/alternatives. It is tight overall, with only slight redundancy in repeating the doc_id provenance that the schema already carries.

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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and explicitly bounding the scope. Combined with the annotation-declared safety profile and the 100%-documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already documents the single doc_id parameter, including its source. The description restates the same sourcing guidance, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata for a single Coda doc by ID') and immediately distinguishes itself from the content-oriented siblings by naming coda_list_pages and coda_list_tables. An agent can select this over the many other coda_get_* tools without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit negative scope ('Does NOT return page content or table data') plus the named alternatives for that case, and tells the agent where the required doc_id comes from (coda_list_docs or coda_resolve_browser_link). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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