coda_get_page

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: what specific fields are returned, that it excludes text content, and that page names are unstable. No contradictions with 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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists returns and exclusions, third gives best practice. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers functionality, return fields, a limitation, and a usage tip. Could mention error handling, but not required for basic completeness.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra semantic value by explaining why page IDs are preferred over names for page_id_or_name, which aids correct tool invocation.

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 the tool gets metadata for a single page, lists the returned fields (name, ID, parent, subtitle, icon, image), and explicitly states it does NOT return page text content. It also distinguishes itself from coda_get_page_content, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance by directing users to coda_get_page_content for text content and advising to use page IDs over names. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives for listing pages, the advice given is actionable and sufficient for correct usage.

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