inspect_sheet_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method ('via XLSX export') and detection of 'IMAGE() formulas', but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies files, authentication requirements, rate limits, output format (though an output schema exists), or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and method concisely. There's no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (involving Google Sheets, XLSX export, and image/formula detection), no annotations, and an output schema (which mitigates the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the 'what' but misses the 'how' and 'when'—lacking usage context, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but the gaps in other areas keep it at a minimal viable level.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the three parameters (spreadsheet_id_or_url, sheet_name, output_dir) are undocumented in both the schema and description. The description implies context about inspecting images and formulas but doesn't explain how parameters relate to this, such as what 'output_dir' controls or if 'sheet_name' limits the inspection scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does minimal work, and the description doesn't compensate.

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's purpose: 'Inspect Google Sheets images via XLSX export and detect IMAGE() formulas.' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), resource ('Google Sheets images'), and method ('via XLSX export'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_google_doc_images' or 'export_google_file', which could have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, file access), use cases (e.g., analyzing embedded images vs. formulas), or exclusions (e.g., not for downloading images directly). With sibling tools like 'download_google_doc_images' and 'export_google_file', the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context.

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