inspect_named_range

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's additional details about scope, destinations, and broken-reference signals provide useful behavioral context beyond the structured data. No contradictions exist.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's action and key outputs. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (scope, destinations, broken-reference signals). It could be more explicit about the return format or parameter usage, but it is adequate for a simple inspection tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. While filepath and name are self-explanatory, the scope_sheet parameter is not described, and the description does not explain how parameters relate to the output. The tool adds minimal semantic value over the parameter names.

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 'Inspect a named range' uses a specific verb and resource, and it clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_named_ranges or delete_named_range. It also adds unique output details (scope, destinations, broken-reference signals) that further clarify its purpose.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need details about a specific named range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over listing or modifying tools.

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