List the tabs in a Google Sheet

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the output shape (name, sheetId, row/column count, position) and explicitly notes it is free. This adds useful context beyond the structured annotations, though it does not discuss failure modes or edge cases.

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?

Three tightly-written sentences earn their place: the first defines the output, the second gives precise usage timing, and the third confirms safety and cost. Information is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides the return fields in prose, the exact triggering conditions, and the associated sibling tools. Combined with a fully documented input schema, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add guidance on choosing between sheetUrl and spreadsheetId or explain precedence, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly identifies the resource (tabs in a Google Spreadsheet) and what is returned: name, numeric sheetId, row/column count, and position. It also differentiates from related sheet-mutation tools by positioning itself as the discovery step that precedes them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call BEFORE naming a tab in update_sheet, clear_sheet_range, manage_sheet_tabs, or format_sheet, and before deleting a tab. It frames the tool as the way to learn actual file contents instead of guessing, which is actionable and unambiguous.

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