feishu_read_spreadsheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (reads data from specified range) but lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, return format (structure of returned data), pagination for large ranges, or whether it's a safe read-only operation. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with the return behavior. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably too brief for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

Given the complexity of spreadsheet operations, absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the data returns in (array of arrays? JSON objects?), how authentication works, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output definition, the description should provide more context about the return value.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions '指定范围' (specified range) which is already covered by the 'range' parameter description. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value beyond the structured schema.

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 action ('读取数据' - read data) and resource ('飞书电子表格' - Feishu spreadsheet), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'feishu_write_spreadsheet' by specifying read vs write operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'feishu_read_bitable' or 'feishu_read_document' which are also read operations on different Feishu resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'feishu_read_bitable' (for reading database-like tables) or 'feishu_read_document' (for reading document content), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication requirements or spreadsheet access permissions.

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