Coda List Docs

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses a concrete rate limit (4 calls per 6 seconds), enumerates the returned metadata (name, owner, folder, timestamps), and explicitly excludes page content and table data. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences with the scope stated first and the negative constraint second; no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information, and the ordering prioritizes the highest-value facts.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only to frame scope, exclusions, and throttling, which it does. It omits mention of the response_format and folder/owner filters, but the schema documents those adequately, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries its own description; the description merely echoes the purpose of query and cursor. It adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema, 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 with explicit scope ('List Coda docs accessible to the current API token') and immediately contrasts itself with siblings by declaring what it does not return, naming coda_list_pages and coda_list_tables. An agent can distinguish this from coda_get_doc, coda_create_doc, and the page/table listers without opening a 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?

It routes the agent away from this tool for page/table content and points to the correct alternatives, and it explains how to use query for name search and cursor for pagination. It stops short of stating explicit when-to-use framing (e.g., 'use this to discover doc IDs before calling coda_get_doc'), but the implied context is clear.

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