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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists only the current user's Drive and returns a JSON array with specific fields. However, it does not mention limitations like pagination, error handling, or behavior when no results.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that flow logically: scope, use case, and return format. No unnecessary words, but it could be better structured with explicit parameter details.

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 simple listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, return fields, and use case. However, it omits details on max_results behavior, filtering semantics (e.g., case sensitivity), and ordering, which are needed for full completeness.

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 50% (only name_contains has a schema description). The tool description adds overall purpose but does not explain the max_results parameter (e.g., default, max, or ordering). The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists Google Sheets in the user's own Drive and is used to find spreadsheet_id by name. It differentiates from copying URLs, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though no other listing tool exists among siblings.

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 provides a specific use case (finding spreadsheet_id by name) but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools are different actions, so confusion is low, but the guidance is limited.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the non-destructive nature (does not overwrite), but fails to disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, error conditions, or performance implications.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and constraint, containing no unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description provides the essential behavior but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter relationships or usage context, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Thêm' (append) and resource 'hàng mới vào cuối bảng dữ liệu hiện có' (new rows to the end of existing data), and explicitly distinguishes from overwriting by saying 'không đè dữ liệu cũ'.

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 implies usage for appending without overwriting, which helps differentiate from sheets_write, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only values are cleared and formatting is preserved, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about error handling, return values, or side effects like clearing formulas.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple two-parameter clear operation, the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not clarify what the tool returns upon success or failure, which could be important for an agent despite the lack of an output schema.

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 description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The description simply restates the overall action without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clearly states that the tool clears values in a range without affecting format/border, and the verb 'Xóa' (clear) is specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sheets_write and sheets_append by focusing on clearing content only.

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 implies usage for clearing values while preserving formatting, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_write or sheets_append. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the spreadsheet is created empty. No details on auth needs, rate limits, or effects on existing data (though creation is safe). Minimal transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and parameter usage. It doesn't detail the return value, but that's acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying default root location, how to obtain folder_id, and an example for sheet_titles. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 title and description clearly state it creates a new Google Sheet. The verb 'Tạo' (Create) and resource 'spreadsheet mới' are specific. Among sibling tools like sheets_append, sheets_read, etc., it uniquely serves creation, so it's well-distinguished.

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 explains default placement in root My Drive and when to use folder_id for alternative location. However, it doesn't provide when-not-to-use, alternatives, or prerequisites, limiting guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It specifies the required data range format but omits important details such as error handling for invalid input, permissions needed, whether the chart is immediately visible, or if the sheet is modified in any other way (e.g., adding new sheets). The lack of such information leaves significant gaps.

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 consists of two sentences front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a key constraint and example. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., chart ID or URL). It also lacks information on potential errors, performance implications, or how the chart is placed relative to the data. This incompleteness is significant for a tool that creates a new object.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context for the 'data_range' parameter by specifying the exact column order and providing an example, going beyond the schema's description. For other parameters, the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 states 'Tạo chart nến cho dữ liệu giá (OHLC)' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as creating a candlestick chart for OHLC data. The title also specifies candlestick chart, distinguishing it from the general 'sheets_create_chart' sibling.

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 implies usage when OHLC data is available and provides strict formatting rules for data_range. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'sheets_create_chart' for other chart types, nor does it provide when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that charts are embedded directly into tabs, that stacked only applies to certain types, and that PIE accepts exactly one series. However, it does not mention potential destructive behavior, permissions, or output details.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides critical usage guidance on range format.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and parameter constraints. It could mention return values (e.g., chart ID) or error handling, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that ranges must include sheet names and clarifying type-specific constraints (stacked only for COLUMN/BAR/AREA, PIE one series). This goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it creates basic charts (COLUMN/BAR/LINE/AREA/SCATTER/PIE) from existing data and embeds them into a sheet. It distinguishes from the sibling 'sheets_create_candlestick_chart' by listing supported chart types.

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 explicitly requires ranges to include sheet names, providing a concrete usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool, but the sibling list implies alternatives exist for candlestick charts.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation, which is accurate. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements or performance implications, though for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core function without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers what it does. Although there is no output schema, the description mentions it returns names and IDs, which is sufficient. Slightly enhanced completeness would include what data is returned, but not essential.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains spreadsheet_id in detail. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool lists names and IDs of tabs in a Google Sheet file, with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sheets_read or sheets_write which deal with data, not metadata.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema parameter description hints at using drive_list_spreadsheets to find the ID, but the main description lacks direct usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (2D array), which adds value. However, it does not mention behavioral traits such as handling of formulas, empty cells, or pagination. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 wasted words. It conveys the essential information succinctly.

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 tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about potential edge cases (e.g., empty cells, formula values) or any behavioral details beyond the return format.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only states the overall action and return format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reads a range from Google Sheet and returns a 2D array. The verb 'read' and resource 'Google Sheet' are specific, and the tool name aligns with the purpose. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like sheets_write or sheets_append.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to read data from a sheet, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly discloses the key behavioral trait: old data is completely replaced. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., formatting preservation), error handling, permissions, or rate limits. The value_input_option behavior is in the schema but not described here.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that cover the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and effect.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what happens if the range is invalid, whether the sheet is auto-created, error cases, or the return value. For a mutation tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100% for the 4 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 per the guidelines.

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 clearly states the tool overwrites values in a specific range and that old data is completely replaced. The verb 'ghi đè' (overwrite) is specific, and the resource 'range trong Google Sheet' is identified. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sheets_append (appends) and sheets_clear (clears).

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 implies usage for overwriting data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_append for appending. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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