r7_sheet_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies values, formulas and formatting are all returned, yet the schema shows formulas and styles are opt-in via includeFormulas/includeStyles flags — a potentially misleading impression — and it says nothing about failure modes for a missing file or sheet.

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 that names the verb, the resource and the scope with no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sketches the return content but does not explain the optional flags that materially change the response, nor error behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps the structured fields do not fill.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the range example and the sheetName/sheetIndex precedence is already documented in the schema. The description's range example (A1:D10) merely repeats the schema and adds no extra semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (spreadsheet values, formulas, formatting) scoped to a worksheet or range, which clearly separates it from r7_sheet_write and the generic r7_read. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for related tasks, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as r7_read or r7_inspect, even though the sibling list contains several read-oriented tools. The agent must infer that this is the spreadsheet-specific reader.

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