sheets_get_border_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output structure (horizontal and vertical grids as 2D arrays) and how includeStyle affects the output (style only vs. color/width details). It does not mention authorization or side effects, but as a read operation, this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose stated first, followed by details on output format and the includeStyle option. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. It covers the inputs (range, includeStyle) and the output structure. However, it could mention that the tool only works on a single range and does not modify anything, but the completeness is sufficient for an experienced agent.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema. For includeStyle, it explains the default (false) and the difference in output (compact vs. detailed). For range, it emphasizes the sheet prefix requirement. This adds useful context for the agent.

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 it returns a visual tabular map of borders for a range, distinguishing it from per-cell JSON. The verb 'Returns' paired with the specific resource 'visual tabular map of borders' makes the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tool sheets_update_borders by focusing on reading borders.

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 explains when to use this tool: to get compact grids that solve ambiguity between adjacent cell borders. It also mentions the includeStyle parameter for controlling output detail. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different scenarios.

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