Coda Get Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: exactly which metadata is returned, what is explicitly excluded, and the instability of page names. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but those are not clearly relevant for a single-resource get.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by the exclusion and the ID caveat.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. With annotations covering the safety profile and both parameters documented, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's 'prefer ID — names are unstable' note merely echoes the schema's own wording. No additional format or syntax detail is added, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 page in a Coda doc') and enumerates the returned fields (name, ID, parent, subtitle, icon, image). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling coda_get_page_content by stating it does NOT return text content.

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_get_page_content when text content is needed, and adds the operational guidance to always use page IDs since names can change. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are named directly.

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