apple_numbers_list_sheets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'open spreadsheet' precondition; it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens if the document is not open.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably signal the return shape (sheet names) and pagination semantics for limit/offset, but it does not. For a simple read-only list tool this is adequate but leaves real 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 33%: documentName is documented in the schema (exact name, duplicates rejected) but limit and offset have no descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning at all and fails to compensate for those undocumented pagination parameters.

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 ('List sheets') scoped to an open Numbers spreadsheet, which distinguishes it from apple_numbers_list_documents (all documents) and apple_numbers_list_tables (different resource). Sibling differentiation is implicit via the 'sheets' resource rather than spelled out.

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 phrase 'in an open Numbers spreadsheet' implies the prerequisite that the document must already be open, but the description never names alternatives (e.g. list_documents, open, list_tables) or states when this tool is the right choice. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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