Coda Get Pack Analytics Summary

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

Annotations already cover safety traits: readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those annotations by disclosing the pack-maker authorization requirement and clarifying that metrics are summed across packs. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return contents and access condition. It is appropriately sized and contains 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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough context: aggregation purpose, returned metrics, and pack-maker restriction. The main remaining gap is explicit guidance on how it relates to nearby list_pack analytics tools.

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 pack_ids, since_date, until_date, and is_published. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, defaults, or filter behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 aggregated analytics summary for packs. It further distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying that results are summed across packs and by naming the returned metrics. An agent can identify it as the aggregate counterpart to coda_list_pack_analytics.

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 gives an access prerequisite ('only available to pack makers'), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this summary versus coda_list_pack_analytics or coda_list_pack_formula_analytics. Usage is implied by 'aggregated summary' but not clearly routed.

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