spreadsheet-columns

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

Without annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'list' columns, implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not disclose edge cases, such as behavior when no object is selected or when the component is unspecified, nor does it describe the output format. The description is minimal but not misleading; it conveys the core behavior of listing.

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, directly front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise and easy to parse. Every word adds value.

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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not explain what the columns represent beyond noting they come from geometry attributes, nor does it specify the return format. However, given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools like spreadsheet-rows, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's role, though it could benefit from more detail about the output.

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 two parameters, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema relies on titles (e.g., 'Object name; defaults to the active object' and 'Geometry domain/component: POINT, EDGE, FACE, or CORNER') for meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters or their semantics, leaving the agent to infer from the titles alone. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action: 'List spreadsheet columns' with a specific source: 'derived from object geometry attributes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spreadsheet-rows (which lists rows) and spreadsheet-report (which likely provides a general report). The verb and resource are explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one needs spreadsheet columns, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like spreadsheet-rows or spreadsheet-report. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other spreadsheet tools, nor any exclusions. For a simple read-only listing, the purpose is sufficient, but explicit guidance is missing.

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