origin_get_worksheet_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the outputs (row/column counts, column label rows) but does not disclose that it is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens if parameters are omitted. Basic transparency is present, but more behavioral details (e.g., 'safe to call multiple times') would improve the score.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no extraneous information. Every word adds value. Highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the main return values (counts and label rows). However, it fails to explain the label_types parameter and its effect on the output, leaving a gap in completeness. Still, for a simple metadata tool, it is mostly adequate.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (book_name, sheet_name, label_types). The agent must infer from names, but the description mentions 'column label rows' which hints at the label_types parameter, but insufficiently. With no param guidance, the tool is hard to invoke correctly without guessing.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'worksheet info' with specific outputs: row/column counts and column label rows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_read_worksheet (which reads data) or origin_get_cell_value (specific cell), providing strong purpose clarity.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not contrast with alternatives like origin_read_worksheet for data access or origin_get_cell_value for individual cells. Usage can only be implied from the tool's purpose, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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