describe_sheet_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that ('Return... summary'). The word 'safe' reinforces non-destructive behavior, but the description doesn't disclose specifics like how layout is computed, what data is read, or whether it samples actual cell contents.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the basic action and purpose.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't describe the return structure, the role of sample_limit, or the meaning of free_canvas metrics, making it hard to know what results to expect.

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 0%. The description doesn't explain any of the 6 parameters, especially the free_canvas_* and sample_limit, leaving their semantics unclear. Parameter names in the schema are the only hints.

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 'return' and identifies the resource as a 'structural worksheet layout summary' with a purpose clause ('for safe dashboard-style edits'). However, what constitutes the summary is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools like audit_workbook or find_free_canvas.

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 'for safe dashboard-style edits' implies when to use it (before editing), providing clear context. Yet it doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, stopping short of explicit guidance.

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