auto_fit_columns

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses one behavioral trait: widths are clamped to 8-80. But it lacks details on whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence is slightly fragmented but still clear and efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers main functionality and a key constraint, but omits details like return value, error handling, or which sheet is affected when not specified. Gaps remain.

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 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by explaining the 'columns' parameter format and default behavior. However, 'sheet' and 'session_id' are not explained, leaving gaps.

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: 'size each column to its longest value', identifies the resource (columns), and specifies scope ('like A:F' or all used). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_column_width' which sets a specific width.

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 context on usage: how to specify columns and that omitting fits all used columns. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though siblings like 'set_column_width' exist.

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