describe_spreadsheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content in detail (case count, variable count, full variable metadata), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However it never states side effects: whether a STATISTICA process is launched, whether the file is modified, or what 'attach' does to the running instance.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and then lists the payload. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item is a real return field, so little is wasted; only the opening is arguably overloaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of enumerating return values, and it does so thoroughly. The remaining gap is behavioral: for an 'open a file' tool with no annotations, an agent still cannot tell whether opening has side effects or how attach changes the call.

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% and all three parameters (path, sheet, attach) are documented in the schema, including the live-edit semantics of attach. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the .sta/.stw file extension hint, so the 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 concrete verb+resource pair ('Open a .sta/.stw file') and enumerates exactly what it reports (case count, variable count, and per-variable metadata fields). This distinguishes it in substance from value-reading siblings like read_variables, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not mention any sibling (e.g. read_variables, list_sheets) as an alternative. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Open...and report'.

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