Coda Get Page Content

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so credit goes to added context: the warning that markdown output may be lossy for complex Coda content such as embedded objects and pack formulas. This is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields, though it doesn't mention output shape or pagination.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the format behavior, then the lossy caveat and alternative. The second sentence ('Returns the page's content in the specified format') is slightly redundant against the first, but the description remains tight and purposeful.

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 described, and the description covers format behavior, the lossy-markdown caveat, and the sibling routing. It is essentially complete for a read tool, with only minor gaps around alternatives like export_page.

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% and the enum for output_format is defined in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the HTML/markdown format choice but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is already documented. Baseline 3 applies.

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 sibling coda_get_page ('metadata only'). An agent can tell it apart from coda_get_page without opening either 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 clear when-to-use guidance and names the specific alternative (coda_get_page for metadata). It does not address related siblings like coda_export_page or coda_delete_page_content, but the core routing decision is explicit.

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