suggest_read_strategy

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool recommends a tool rather than performing the read itself—a useful behavioral disclosure. It doesn't explain how 'best' is determined or what the recommendation contains, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 one sentence, action-first, and free of redundancy. Every word is purposeful, clearly stating the tool's function without wasted content.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and a non-trivial meta-tool role, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the recommendation looks like (e.g., tool name, arguments, confidence), how 'best' is decided, or how the target parameters map to candidate read tools.

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, but it only references a generic 'workbook target' and does not explain any of the six parameters (filepath, sheet_name, sample_rows, etc.). The schema titles are self-explanatory, yet the description contributes almost no additional meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Recommend' with a clear resource ('the best SheetForge read tool') and target ('workbook target'), making the tool's role obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools, which actually perform reads, by framing this as a recommendation/meta-tool.

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 the requested workbook target' establishes clear context: use this tool when you need to determine the best read tool for a workbook. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the recommender role is clear enough to guide when to invoke it.

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