numbers_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it discloses that computed values are included, formulas return results rather than text, and numbers are localized (with a comma for decimals on Italian systems). These are non-obvious behavioral traits that help the agent set expectations.

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 succinct and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by two relevant behavioral notes, then the parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clean.

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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned (first table, computed values), formula behavior, localization, and the required path. There is no missing critical information, and the output schema handles return value details.

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 only one parameter, path, with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by explaining 'path: path to the `.numbers` file.' This provides the meaning and file-type expectation that the schema lacks.

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 starts with 'Read back the first table of a Numbers sheet', which clearly states the action (read) and resource (Numbers sheet) with a specific scope (first table). This distinguishes it from siblings like numbers_set (write) and numbers_create (create), and from pages_read for Pages files.

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 clearly implies use for reading Numbers data with the verb 'Read back'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like numbers_set for writing, but the context is clear, and the 'first table' limitation is stated upfront.

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