sheets_get_border_map

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the output format (horizontal and vertical grids), the style detail controlled by includeStyle, and the larger output size. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (output format, ambiguity solving, option effects). No wasted words or redundancy with schema details.

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 simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (two 2D arrays), the meaning of the grids, and the effect of includeStyle. It also clarifies the range requirement indirectly via the schema. No major gaps.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only marginal detail (e.g., 'larger output' for includeStyle), which is not essential given the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema shoulders the burden.

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 function: 'Returns a visual tabular map of borders for a range.' It also explains the compact grid format and the ambiguity it resolves, which distinguishes it from generic border getters. The verb 'returns' and resource 'borders for a range' make the purpose precise and differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 strong context by explaining that it overcomes the right/left border ambiguity and offers a compact alternative to per-cell JSON. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives needed for a 5.

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