sheets_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable warning that returned cell content is untrusted and potentially attacker-controlled, which is crucial for safe handling. It does not mention other behaviors like error handling or rate limits, but the security caveat is significant.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines the action and format, the second delivers an essential security warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple read tool with only two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage (range format) and a key security consideration. An output schema exists, so return type details are not needed. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly mention spreadsheet_id provenance.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'range' parameter with an A1 notation example ('Bugs!A1:D50'), which adds meaning. However, the 'spreadsheet_id' parameter is not described, leaving a gap for one of only two parameters.

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 'Read cell values from a Google Sheet range' with a concrete A1 notation example, making the action and resource unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools sheets_write and sheets_list_tabs by focusing on reading cell data.

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 implies this is the tool to use for reading Google Sheets data but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling names give context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on alternative selection.

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