list_spreadsheets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists spreadsheets, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate sections for arguments and returns. Each sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the sections more fluidly, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling. For a simple list tool, this might be sufficient, but the absence of annotations means more detail would be helpful for reliable use.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents both parameters: 'user_google_email' and 'max_results', with details on data types, requirements, and defaults. Since the schema description coverage is 0%, this adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, explaining what each parameter means and how to use them. However, it doesn't cover edge cases or validation rules, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 tool's purpose: 'Lists spreadsheets from Google Drive that the user has access to.' This specifies the verb ('Lists'), resource ('spreadsheets'), and scope ('from Google Drive that the user has access to'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_drive_items' or 'search_drive_files', which might also list files, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 sibling tools like 'list_drive_items' or 'search_drive_files', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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