sheets_get_full_sheet_snapshot

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes far beyond by exposing defaults (compactMode OFF, includeConditionalFormatting true), output size implications of compactMode, and the locale normalization of CF formulas. This adds substantial behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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 dense but well-structured: it starts with the overall purpose, lists return contents, then explains each option and its default. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundant filler, achieving high information density in a logical order.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates what is returned (sheet properties, merged cells, widths, heights, banded ranges, optional formatting) and covers all major behaviors (compact mode, conditional formatting, field filtering, locale normalization). For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is highly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of fields limit, the effect of compactMode on output size, and the conditional formatting default, which complements but does not merely repeat schema descriptions. It slightly exceeds the baseline by clarifying parameter interactions.

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 uses a specific verb ('reads') and resource ('all structural and formatting metadata for a sheet'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sheets_get_sheet_structure or sheets_get_sheet_formatting. It also explicitly frames it as a 'one-shot' comprehensive snapshot, which differentiates its scope from lighter getters.

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?

Provides clear context and a primary use case: 'Use this before programmatically recreating a sheet.' It also explains when to enable compactMode or includeConditionalFormatting, but does not explicitly name alternative lighter tools or state when not to use this tool, falling just short of a 5.

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