Coda List Pack Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious authorization constraint (pack makers only, own packs only) that the annotations do not convey, though it says nothing about pagination behavior beyond what the cursor parameter implies.

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 content and access restriction. No filler, though the return-content sentence is partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 all six optional parameters fully documented, the description only needs to supply scope and access rules, which it does. The missing piece is sibling differentiation within the analytics family.

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%, so every parameter (limit, cursor, pack_ids, since_date, until_date, is_published) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or filtering guidance, 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?

The description uses a clear verb+resource ('List analytics data for Coda packs') and specifies the metric types returned (install counts, doc usage, formula invocations). It does not, however, distinguish this listing tool from close siblings like coda_get_pack_analytics_summary or coda_list_pack_formula_analytics, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Only available to pack makers for their own packs' gives a real access precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the summary or formula-analytics siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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