list_spreadsheets

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 the output is a formatted list with name, ID, and modified time, and that access is scoped by the user's email. It also notes the max_results default, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits any limitations such as pagination.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 description adequately covers a simple listing tool with two parameters, including the return format. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't address pagination or error conditions, but given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, it is sufficient.

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?

The description explains both parameters explicitly: user_google_email is required and max_results defaults to 25. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this fully compensates and provides clear meaning beyond the type information.

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 lists spreadsheets from Google Drive with the specific scope of what the user has access to, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_drive_items and search_drive_files.

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 context that it lists only spreadsheets accessible to the user, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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