spreadsheet-report

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Report', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify what state is shown, whether any changes occur, what the output format is, or how component filtering affects results. This is a significant gap for a report tool.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Important semantic details about the tool's output and parameter behavior are omitted, making the brevity a liability.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and unhelpful parameter coverage, the description is incomplete for a moderately configurable report tool. It does not describe the return value, the effect of component choices, or how the report relates to the spreadsheet editor state.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the object and component parameters. It fails to do so; neither parameter is mentioned. The phrase 'object table shape' does not help the agent understand how 'object' or 'component' control the report.

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 states a clear action ('Report') and target ('spreadsheet editor state and object table shape'), which broadly distinguishes it from sibling spreadsheet tools. However, 'object table shape' is ambiguous and could mean the geometry component, column structure, or data layout, so it does not fully communicate the tool's exact scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spreadsheet-columns or spreadsheet-rows. The description mentions no exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer when this report is appropriate.

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