Coda Search Principals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping (search restricted to a doc's permission principals, matching on name or email prefix) but does not go beyond that into things like result limits or empty-result behavior.

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 immediately followed by the workflow hook. Every sentence contributes, though the return-fields sentence is somewhat 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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the description provides enough orientation to call this correctly. Re-stating the returned fields is slightly redundant rather than additive, keeping it just below a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so both doc_id and query are fully documented in the schema. The description implies query-based matching but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (principals = users and groups), and scopes it further with 'that can be added to a doc's permissions.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming coda_add_permission and clarifying this is the lookup step that precedes it.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: 'look up a user's email or find groups before calling coda_add_permission.' The workflow relationship to the add-permission sibling is explicit. No explicit exclusions or alternate tools are named, so it falls just short of a 5.

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