sheets_get_sheet_properties

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

There are no annotations to indicate side effects or read-only behavior. The description uses 'get', which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention any potential errors or output format. Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the primary purpose without extraneous detail, making it well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

While the description mentions example properties (title, index, hidden status), it lacks enough context to fully disambiguate from similar sibling tools like sheets_get_sheet_info. The 'etc.' is vague, and the description does not clarify what specific properties are included or how the tool fits into a broader workflow. Given the existence of closely named alternatives, this incompleteness is significant.

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?

Both parameters are described with minimal phrases ('The ID of the specific sheet', 'The ID of the spreadsheet') that merely restate the parameter names without adding meaningful context about their format, origin, or relationship. Since schema coverage is 100% but the descriptions add negligible value, the score is low.

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 'properties of a specific sheet', listing examples like title, index, and hidden status. It is concise and easily understood, though the trailing 'etc.' introduces slight vagueness.

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 guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus the closely related sibling tools such as sheets_get_sheet_info or sheets_get_metadata. An agent cannot determine the appropriate context or distinguish this tool from alternatives based on the description alone.

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