sheets_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that the output is structural metadata (names, ids, dimensions), but it does not describe formatting, ordering, or any edge cases such as empty spreadsheets.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the tool's output and immediately follows with actionable usage guidance. 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, safe, one-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and when to use it. The only notable gap is the lack of explanation around the spreadsheetId parameter, which is mitigated by the schema and the parameter's self-evident name.

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%, and the description does not mention spreadsheetId at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional guidance on where the ID comes from, its format, or why it is required.

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 resource and result: spreadsheet structure including every sheet name, id, and dimensions. It differentiates from sheets_read by indicating this is metadata discovery, not a range query, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb in the first phrase.

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 gives explicit guidance: read this before a range query so the sheet name is correct. This implies the right moment to use the tool, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or describe when not to use it.

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