get_app_sheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with additional context about when to use it.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the returned list takes, whether it includes all sheets or is filtered, or what happens with invalid app_ids. The description should provide more operational context given the lack of structured metadata.

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 the single parameter 'app_id' fully documented as 'Application GUID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Get list of sheets') and resource ('from application'), specifying what information is retrieved ('with title and description'). It distinguishes this from general app retrieval tools like 'get_apps' by focusing specifically on sheets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_app_sheet_objects' which might retrieve different sheet-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_app_sheet_objects' or other sheet-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage beyond the basic parameter requirement.

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