Coda Get Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the exact return surface and, critically, that page names are mutable and unreliable. That instability caveat is genuine operational context an agent cannot get from 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the exclusion plus stability caveat follow in priority order. Every sentence changes how an agent would call the tool.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so by naming the returned fields, which is exactly the missing piece. It omits error behavior (e.g. what happens if the page name is ambiguous or not found), which is a minor gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's "always use page IDs" mildly reinforces the schema's "prefer ID" note but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information.

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 explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling coda_get_page_content, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema. It also enumerates the exact metadata fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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?

Provides a clear negative condition ("Does NOT return the page's text content — use coda_get_page_content for that") plus a practical calling convention ("always use page IDs"). It does not explicitly address when to prefer this over coda_list_pages, so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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