Coda List Pages

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description still adds substantive behavior: return contents (name, ID, parent, icon), tree ordering, and the ID-not-name contract for later calls. It stops short of describing pagination semantics (limit default 50, cursor round-trip), which would be the remaining behavioral detail.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then exclusions, then the downstream convention. No filler; each sentence changes agent behavior.

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, yet the description still summaries the returned fields and ordering, and closes the loop on how to use the returned IDs. Nothing needed to call this correctly or chain it 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, and doc_id are already documented in the schema with defaults, bounds, and meaning. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List all pages in a Coda doc') and immediately bounds scope by naming what it does not return (page content) versus coda_get_page_content. An agent can distinguish it from coda_get_page, coda_list_docs, and coda_get_page_content 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: 'Does NOT return page content — use coda_get_page_content for that,' and adds the downstream rule 'Use the returned page IDs (not names) for all subsequent page operations.' Both the alternative and the follow-up convention are stated outright.

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