get_spreadsheet_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific metadata is returned (beyond 'sheet info'). This is inadequate 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get metadata for a Google Spreadsheet') and adds a clarifying detail ('including sheet info'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (what metadata beyond 'sheet info'), error conditions, or operational context (e.g., permissions needed). For a tool with zero structured coverage, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'spreadsheet_id' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or clarifications on ID format). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 metadata') and resource ('Google Spreadsheet'), specifying it includes 'sheet info'. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'get_values' or 'get_values_formatted' by focusing on metadata rather than cell data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_script_metadata' might be ambiguous).

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a spreadsheet ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_values' (for data) or 'get_script_metadata' (for scripts). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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