sheets_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds the metadata scope, which is consistent with a non-destructive read. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like the potentially large payload triggered by includeGridData, but with readOnly coverage present, a 3 is fair.

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 with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool. Slightly more context could be packed in, but the brevity is not a structural flaw.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool whose params are fully covered by the schema and safety profile is carried by annotations. The main gap is the absence of any note about includeGridData's return-size implications or what metadata fields are exposed, which an agent deciding whether to set includeGridData would want.

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 both spreadsheetId and includeGridData are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the word 'metadata,' which weakly hints that includeGridData switches output between metadata-only and raw grid values, but it doesn't compensate further. Baseline 3 is 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?

'Get spreadsheet metadata' states a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from the closest sibling, sheets_values_get, by signaling it returns metadata rather than cell values. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or quantify the scope, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sheets_values_get or sheets_batchUpdate. The sibling list is large and includes a values-getter, but the description offers no routing criteria such as 'use sheets_values_get when you need cell data.' Usage context is entirely implicit.

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