Coda List Controls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that controls are interactive UI elements and lists return fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or permissions needed to read controls — context an agent would benefit from given the cursor parameter.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by return contents and the sibling handoff. The sentence explaining that controls are interactive UI elements is mild filler, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers purpose, scope and the alternative tool. It is essentially complete for a simple paginated list, with only permission/pagination nuance missing.

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% with 3 parameters, so limit, cursor and doc_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (list) and resource (controls) scoped to a Coda doc, and immediately disambiguates with concrete examples (sliders, select lists, date pickers). It is clearly distinguishable from coda_get_control and from the other list_* siblings.

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 to coda_get_control for reading a single control's current value, which is the key decision point against the closest sibling. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use this tool or a note about doc scope/permissions, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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