筛选区域

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('不修改文件' = doesn't modify file), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe the return format (does it return matched row indices, values, or both?), behavior with headers vs. without, or edge cases like no matches. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the critical non-modification guarantee. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. Could arguably add a note about return values but remains tight and efficient.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with 40% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, creating moderate complexity. The description explains the non-destructive nature and AND-condition semantics but leaves open: how results are returned, handling of hasHeader, and column referencing convention. This is a filtering operation that should be fairly predictable given the sibling context, but the missing return-format information is a notable gap.

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 40%, with some parameters documented (filePath, range) but sheetName and hasHeader lacking schema descriptions, and the tool title is Chinese while descriptions are partial. The description adds 'AND' semantics for the conditions parameter, which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't explain what 'column' refers to (header name vs. column letter), the meaning of hasHeader, or how conditions map to columns, leaving gaps in 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 states the verb ('按条件筛选' = filter by conditions), resource ('区域中的行' = rows in range), and adds a key behavioral note ('不修改文件' = doesn't modify file). It's clear it filters rows in a range, distinguishing it from siblings like sort_range and dedupe_range which also operate on ranges but with different actions. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for differentiation.

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 notes that multiple conditions are joined with 'AND' logic, which is useful selection guidance. However, it doesn't state when to choose this over alternatives like sort_range, read_range, or dedupe_range, nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling set but not explicitly articulated.

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