coda_list_rows

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Returns row data with column values. By default uses column names (not IDs) for readability.' and 'Results are paginated — pass cursor to get the next page.' This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is compact and efficient: four sentences, each adding essential information. It starts with the main purpose, then details, then pagination, and finally an alternative tool reference. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, pagination, filtering, sorting, and an output schema (not shown but referenced in context), the description covers the key usage aspects: filtering, sorting, default column naming, pagination, and distinction from get_row. It doesn't need to explain return values since the output schema exists. Minor omissions: no mention of open-world behavior (covered by annotation) and no explicit note about result limits (schema has min/max). Overall complete for practical use.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so all parameters are already described. The description mentions the query parameter for filtering and the use_column_names default, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The schema descriptions for parameters like sort_by and limit are already clear. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'List rows in a Coda table with optional filtering and sorting.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool coda_get_row by noting 'For a specific row by ID, use coda_get_row instead.' The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 description explains when to use the tool (listing rows with filtering/sorting) and when not (for a specific row, use coda_get_row). It mentions pagination and how to handle it with the cursor parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for row mutation (e.g., coda_insert_rows, coda_update_row, coda_delete_row), but the context is clear enough for a listing tool.

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