spreadsheet-rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and 'paginated' hints at limit/offset behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid input (e.g., unknown object or component), whether errors are raised, or the exact structure of the returned rows. It is acceptable but not thorough.

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, tight sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, 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 lack of annotations, output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the returned rows contain, how the 'object' default behaves, or the implications of the 'component' choices. A user would need to guess or invoke the tool to learn its behavior.

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. It only hints at parameter meaning via 'object geometry attributes' (which relates to 'component') and 'paginated' (which relates to limit/offset), but does not explicitly explain any of the four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter titles.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('spreadsheet rows'), and adds specificity with 'paginated' and 'derived from object geometry attributes'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spreadsheet-columns and spreadsheet-report by focusing on rows with geometry-derived data.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain typical use cases (e.g., inspecting vertex data) or mention any exclusion conditions. Without this, an agent may not know when to call spreadsheet-rows over spreadsheet-report or spreadsheet-columns.

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