origin_worksheet_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that an unreadable portion causes refusal rather than silent truncation (because a truncated answer looks like a short worksheet), that row counts are returned separately to avoid ambiguity, and that dates come back as Julian day numbers. These are subtle, high-risk behaviors an agent must know to use the tool safely.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers behavioral caveats in order of importance. Every sentence earns its place—the refusal rule, the window guidance, the row-count separation, and the Julian-date warning are all substantive. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but has no waste.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the non-obvious semantics thoroughly. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The only minor gap is explicit guidance on what 'book' and 'sheet' refer to, but those are reasonably inferable from the tool family.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for start_row and max_rows by explaining the windowing idiom and the semantic consequences of the no-truncation rule. book, sheet, and columns are left to the schema, but they are self-explanatory enough that the marginal value of explaining them is low. Coverage of the riskiest parameters is good.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read worksheet columns as lists') and the native format Origin holds them in. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like origin_worksheet_info (metadata) and origin_worksheet_write, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use start_row/max_rows to take a deliberate window, and advises reading rows_in_sheet and rows_after_window. It also warns about date/time columns coming back as Julian numbers and defers conversion choices. What it lacks is explicit exclusion of alternatives among siblings, but the usage direction is strong.

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