Coda Get Table

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope behavior beyond them by naming exactly which fields come back and by stating the negative scope ('does NOT return row data or column definitions'), which prevents a wrong call — though the field list partly overlaps with the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the return scope, then the negative scope with alternative tools. No filler; every clause carries routing or scoping information.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, a full output schema describing return values, and a 100%-documented two-parameter schema, the description fills the remaining gap — exactly what this tool returns and what it deliberately omits — so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (doc_id, table_id_or_name) are documented in the schema. The description adds no format or naming nuance beyond the schema's 'Table ID or name', so the 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 metadata for a single table or view in a Coda doc') and enumerates the returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from the row/column siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for row data (coda_list_rows) and column definitions (coda_list_columns), which is precise when-not-to-use guidance. It does not address when to use this tool versus coda_list_tables, so the routing is not fully symmetrical.

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