handle_get_sheet_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions connecting, opening an app, retrieving objects, and returning JSON, but omits details like authentication requirements, read-only nature, performance implications, or error handling. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence is slightly redundant ('MCP tool handler for retrieving...'), but overall it is efficient with minimal waste. Could be tightened by removing redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return value explanation is not required. However, the description does not cover nuances like container support or nested objects mentioned in the schema. It provides a high-level overview but lacks completeness regarding the complexity of the six parameters and their interactions.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the input schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It neither significantly enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves visualization objects from a sheet, with a clear verb ('retrieving') and resource ('visualization objects from a sheet'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which handle app-level metadata (e.g., dimensions, measures) or list sheets, by focusing on objects within a specific sheet.

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 implies usage for analyzing sheet visualizations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like handle_get_app_sheets for listing sheets or handle_get_app_measures for app-level metadata. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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