sch_get_sheet_parameters

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 that it 'reads all parameters without modifying anything,' establishing read-only semantics, and describes the return shape. It omits any info on permissions, large-sheet behavior, or error conditions, so it's adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loads the purpose then uses clear Args/Returns structure with no wasted sentences. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it's compact and harmless.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, read-only nature, and return shape. An output schema already exists, so return detail is bonus rather than required; nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 single parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate—and it does, explaining file_path is a full .SchDoc path and that empty means the active document. That fully documents the parameter beyond the bare schema.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (title block parameters from a schematic sheet), listing example fields (title, revision, date). The 'schematic sheet' scoping implicitly separates it from project-level siblings like proj_get_parameters, though it doesn't name an alternative 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?

Explains the default behavior when file_path is empty ('reads from the active document'), which helps an agent decide how to invoke it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or directs the agent to any sibling tool for related parameter reads.

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