read_sheet

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses return shape ('array'), multi-agent scoping ('agent-scoped tabs'), a concrete failure mode ('cross-agent reject with TAB_NOT_OWNED'), and a configurable cap ('default 8, 1-64'). It omits auth requirements and other error behaviors, but the multi-agent failure semantics are unusually well surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then multi-agent behavior. Dense but every clause is informative; the 'Returns cell values as array' line is marginally redundant with the purpose sentence but still useful given no output schema.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, return shape, alternatives, prerequisites, and multi-agent constraints. The main gap is error/edge behavior beyond TAB_NOT_OWNED, which is minor for a read operation.

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 schema already documents range format and the full tab_id resolution rule, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Pass tab_id only when this agent owns multiple tabs; auto-resolves otherwise' largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read cell values from a spreadsheet range') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that does the opposite operation ('fill_sheet (write data)'). An agent can select this over fill_sheet without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives a when-to-use condition ('to extract tabular data from a spreadsheet') and names related tools including the prerequisite step ('navigate to go to the spreadsheet first') and the write counterpart fill_sheet. No explicit when-NOT-to-use exclusion, but the routing context is clear.

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