quick_read

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

With readOnlyHint=true in the annotations, the safety profile is already known. The description adds useful behavioral context: output can be array rows or object records, schema hints may be inferred, and the sheet can be explicit or defaulted to the first workbook sheet.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the flexible output behavior is stated in a compact second sentence.

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?

This tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain key behavioral terms like read_boundary_mode or what 'compact table' means, nor does it document defaults for boundary handling. For correct invocation, the agent is left to infer too much from parameter names and sibling context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies row_mode, infer_schema, sheet_name, and filepath behavior indirectly, but many parameters (read_boundary_mode, include_headers, start_col, end_col, max_rows, etc.) remain unexplained beyond their 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 identifies a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('compact table'), and specifies the source as an explicit sheet or the first workbook sheet. It stops short of differentiating itself from the many sibling read tools by name or explicit conditions.

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 word 'compact' and the tool name 'quick_read' imply a lightweight read for simple table extraction, and the statement about array/object records hints at flexible output. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools such as read_data_from_excel or query_table.

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