spreadsheet_read_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the key trait of being side-effect-free ('sem modificar o arquivo'), which is valuable for an agent deciding whether this is a safe read operation. It does not go into further detail, but for a simple read tool this is substantive disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the core operation and the read-only guarantee with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read operation, especially since an output schema exists, but it lacks parameter guidance and explicit sibling routing. For a tool with three required parameters and no annotations, more context about range format or when to prefer this tool would make it complete.

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%, and the description does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or examples. 'Intervalo' only restates the meaning of cell_range; nothing clarifies filename expectations, sheet naming, or the exact range syntax required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lê' / reads) and a specific resource ('intervalo da planilha' / spreadsheet range), and explicitly contrasts itself with mutations via 'sem modificar o arquivo'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, append, update, or summarize.

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 phrase 'sem modificar o arquivo' gives a clear read-only context, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as spreadsheet_summarize_column or spreadsheet_append_rows. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.

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