coda_get_sharing_metadata

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

The description transparently discloses the behavioral traits: it returns metadata about sharing configuration. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, and the description complements them by specifying exactly what the tool returns, without contradiction.

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 description is concise, containing only three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then specifies return information, and ends with a sibling differentiation. No extraneous content.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, clear output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, return type, and usage context. Annotations and schema cover the rest.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter (doc_id) with a description. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets sharing metadata for a Coda doc, specifying the exact information returned (sharable, copiable, restrictions). It also distinguishes from coda_list_permissions, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get sharing configuration metadata) and when not (use coda_list_permissions for access list). This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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