Coda List Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds valuable substance beyond them by declaring the returned content domain ('name, ID, type, row count, and parent page') and an explicit exclusion (no row data), which prevents misuse.

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 and then routing information. Every sentence carries a distinct job: what it lists, what it excludes, and where to go next — no filler.

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 a full output schema present, the description need not detail the response shape, and it correctly avoids doing so beyond a short content summary. Combined with complete parameter docs and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so doc_id, limit, cursor, and table_types are all fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond listing the doc as the target, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all tables and views in a Coda doc') and immediately scopes the resource by clarifying it enumerates table/view objects, not their contents. It distinguishes itself from closely-named siblings by naming coda_list_rows and coda_list_columns.

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 states what this tool does NOT do ('Does NOT return row data — use coda_list_rows for that'), then names a second alternative (coda_list_columns) with the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use paths and the negative case are covered.

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