gws.sheets.read_range

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the response structure (human-readable preview plus JSON payload), truncation behavior via 'truncated' and 'total_rows_in_range', and the use of <untrusted-document-content> tags with a security warning against prompt injection. This is rich behavioral context.

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 and well-structured, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, parameter clarification, response format, truncation handling, and security warning. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return format and edge cases (truncation, untrusted content). All four parameters are documented in the schema, and the description adds the necessary context for effective use. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters (100%), the description adds meaningful context for the 'range' parameter by explaining A1 notation and providing examples. It also implicitly links max_rows to truncation behavior, adding value beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 single range from a Google Spreadsheet, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('range'), and distinguishes it from siblings like write_range and list_tabs. It also gives concrete A1 notation examples.

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 reading a range but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the tool name and basic context rather than providing explicit guidance.

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