Coda Get Page Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning that markdown output may be lossy for complex content such as embedded objects and pack formulas.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and stays brief, with each sentence contributing either format details, a lossiness caveat, or routing guidance. The second sentence partially restates what the name and schema already imply, but overall it is tight and readable.

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?

For a read-only content retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, lossiness, and the main alternative. Minor omissions such as large-page truncation behavior or pagination are not critical for this 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 the schema already documents doc_id, page_id_or_name, and output_format. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the HTML/markdown choice and the trade-off that markdown can be lossy, which helps an agent choose the output_format value.

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 the text content of a page in a Coda doc') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, coda_get_page, which is for metadata only. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns without opening the 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 a clear use case ('reading page text') and names an alternative ('use coda_get_page for metadata only'). It does not address other potentially confusing siblings such as coda_export_page, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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