Coda List Pack Formula Analytics

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: an authorization requirement (pack maker only). It does not, however, discuss rate limits or freshness/staleness of the analytics window.

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 with zero padding; the core purpose leads and the permission caveat and return summary follow in descending priority. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return payload is unnecessary; the description still gives a compact preview of the metrics. With full schema coverage and explicit annotations, an agent has enough to call correctly; only the relationship to sibling analytics tools is left implicit.

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 limit, cursor, pack_id, since_date, and until_date are all documented in the schema with types, bounds, and format hints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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), resource (analytics data), and scope (individual formulas within a pack), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling pack- and doc-level analytics tools. The second sentence enumerates the metrics returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 access constraint ('Only available to the pack maker') is stated, which helps the agent decide whether the call is even permissible. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over coda_list_pack_analytics, coda_get_pack_analytics_summary, or coda_get_analytics_updated; usage must be inferred from the scope wording.

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