List Sheet Discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds details about returned fields (titles, comment counts, etc.) and pagination, but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Score is baseline due to good annotation coverage.

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 opening sentences clearly state purpose and return contents, followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The structure front-loads the key action and is easy to scan.

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 lacking an output schema, the description outlines the return structure (array of discussions) and enumerates key fields (titles, comment counts, etc.). For a list tool with well-documented parameters, this provides sufficient context. A slightly more detailed return shape would be ideal but is not critical.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description compensates effectively by listing each parameter with a concise explanation (e.g., sheet_id as 'Target sheet ID', include_comments with behavior and default). This adds significant meaning beyond schema types and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves all discussions on a sheet (sheet-level and row-level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like smartsheet_list_row_discussions, which presumably focus only on row-level discussions. The verb 'retrieve' with resource 'discussions on a sheet' is specific and unambiguous.

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 scope (all discussions on a sheet) and explicitly states the coverage of both levels, indirectly guiding users away from sibling tools that list only row-level discussions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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