Get Spreadsheet Structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is an inspection/read operation via 'Extract' and 'inspect,' and it discloses an important output behavior: 'Redundant empty nodes are omitted.' It does not discuss authentication, size limits, or error behavior, but these are less critical for a single-input structural inspection tool with an output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences: the first states the operation and output contents, the second gives the usage context, and the third notes omitted nodes. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input format, the purpose, the envelope of returned content, and an important behavioral nuance about empty nodes. There is no significant missing context needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by stating the input is 'provided as a Base64 string,' which directly clarifies the meaning of spreadsheet_b64string. It does not specify encoding nuances such as URL-safe base64 or MIME prefixes, but for a one-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 names a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('full structure of a spreadsheet'), and details exactly what is included: workbook metadata, worksheets, tables with formulas, pivot tables, charts, and shape coordinates. It also distinguishes itself from the file-UUID sibling by explicitly noting the input is a Base64 string.

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 a clear use case: 'Call this to inspect a workbook before editing or converting.' This is useful guidance for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_structure_with_file_uuid or explain when to prefer one over the other.

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