coda_get_table

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

Annotations already declare readonly and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the specific metadata returned (name, ID, type, row count, etc.) and confirming what is excluded, without contradicting 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?

The description is only two sentences, with the purpose and scope front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 an existing output schema, the description appropriately focuses on what is not returned. Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no enums) and the annotations covering safety, the description is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (doc_id, table_id_or_name). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so baseline 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 the verb 'Get metadata' for a single table or view, lists the returned fields, and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like coda_list_rows and coda_list_columns, making the tool's purpose highly specific and distinct.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for row data or column definitions) and suggests alternatives, though it could more explicitly state when the tool should be preferred over similar metadata tools like coda_get_doc.

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