origin_read_worksheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation but lacks details on pagination, performance, error handling, or data format (beyond 'structured rows'). The return structure is not described, leaving significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extra words. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's complexity (5 parameters, unspecified output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It omits what the output structure is, error cases, or prerequisites like whether the worksheet must exist. An output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving uncertainty.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source. It introduces the concept of a 'window' but does not explain how parameters like 'start_row' and 'max_rows' define it, nor does it clarify the 'columns' parameter. The high-level phrase adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 tool reads a 'window' of Origin worksheet data as structured rows, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('worksheet data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'origin_write_worksheet' which writes data. However, the term 'window' is not explicitly defined, which slightly reduces 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other read tools like 'origin_import_table' or the write counterpart. No preconditions or contextual advice is given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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