mcp-google-sheets

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on destructiveness (e.g., irreversible addition, overwrite risk). It adds behavioral context like floating element positioning but misses details on limits, permissions, or side effects beyond 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 well-structured with args, returns, and examples, and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, it is slightly verbose due to detailed parameter descriptions and two examples; could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 covers parameters thoroughly, and an output schema exists (though not shown). Missing context includes error handling, prerequisite permissions (e.g., edit access), and behavior when default values are used. Still, it is largely complete for a tool with good annotations.

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%, but the description compensates fully by listing all 11 parameters with clear explanations, data types, defaults, and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 adds a chart to a Google Spreadsheet, specifies it creates from a data range with customization, and distinguishes from siblings by being the only chart-creation tool among many spreadsheet operations.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., formatting cells or conditional formatting). The agent must infer usage from sibling context, as no other chart tool exists.

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

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context, such as the default starting position for columns. It does not contradict 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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure without unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, the return value mention is acceptable. All parameters are explained. However, it lacks details on prerequisites like permissions or limits, but overall it's adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains all four parameters: spreadsheet_id (where to find), sheet (name), count (number), start_column (0-based, default at beginning). This adds critical meaning beyond the 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 'Add columns to a sheet in a Google Spreadsheet', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_rows' and 'delete_rows_columns'.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implicitly describes the action but lacks alternative suggestions or exclusion criteria.

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

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

Adds the optional anchoring behavior and return value. Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so description does not need to repeat that, and it adds context about comment placement.

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?

Three focused sentences with args listed. Front-loaded main action. No redundant words.

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?

Covers core behavior, optional parameter, and return. Given output schema exists, return explanation is sufficient. Lacks potential restrictions or side effects, but overall adequate for a simple create tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully: explains spreadsheet_id, content, anchor_cell format and its effect when omitted. This adds vital meaning beyond schema types.

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 'Add a comment to a spreadsheet', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_comments and resolve_comment by implying creation.

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?

Explains when to use anchor_cell vs file-level comment. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other comment-related siblings.

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

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the tool modifies the spreadsheet. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond what the annotations provide, such as potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing rules). It adequately describes the action but adds no extra transparency.

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 structured as a docstring with a brief statement followed by an Args list. It is clear and not overly verbose, though the list of rule types could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is well-organized and 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?

Given the 6 parameters (3 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all input parameters well. However, it lacks details about behavior on duplicate rules or invalid ranges. With the output schema present, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. It is fairly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the docstring. It provides examples (e.g., 'B2:B100' for range, 'NUMBER_GREATER' for rule_type, or values like ['100'] for greater than), adding significant meaning beyond the input 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 tool 'Add a conditional formatting rule to a range', specifying the verb 'Add', the resource 'conditional formatting rule', and the scope 'to a range'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_filter', 'format_cells', etc.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lists rule types but does not discuss prerequisites or context for selection. Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but no explicit when/when-not information is given.

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

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but description adds no context about what is destroyed (e.g., existing filters) or side effects. Does not exceed annotation value.

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?

Short and direct, purpose is first. Includes args and returns. Efficient but could be more structured.

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?

Missing prerequisites, behavior when filter already exists, or output details. Output schema exists but description's return line is vague. Incomplete for a mutation tool with 3 required params.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds format for 'range' (A1 notation). Other parameters lack additional meaning beyond names. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states the action 'add' and resource 'basic filter' with scope 'to a range'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'add_conditional_format' or 'add_pivot_table'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sort_range' or 'add_conditional_format'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral information beyond stating it creates a pivot table. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error handling, or return value details beyond a vague statement.

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 an Args list, making it easy to parse. It is efficient with no fluff, though the 'Returns' line is vague and could be omitted if output schema suffices. Overall, it 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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters) and lack of schema descriptions, the description covers parameter meanings but lacks workflow context, error scenarios, or data requirements (e.g., headers). With an output schema present, the return value vagueness is acceptable, but more context would improve completeness.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by providing clear, concise explanations for all 8 parameters, including examples and default values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'Create a pivot table from source data,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings as none of the listed sibling tools create pivot tables. However, it lacks explicit mention of the spreadsheet context (Google Sheets), though parameters imply it.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. There is no guidance on context or best practices.

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

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

The annotation already indicates destructiveHint=true. The description adds that rows are added and, if start_row is omitted, rows are added at the beginning. It does not disclose potential side effects like shifting existing rows, permissions required, or what the 'Result of the operation' entails.

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 (three sentences plus Returns line) and front-loads the purpose. The Returns line is generic, but overall structure is clear and efficient without superfluous text.

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?

Covers purpose and parameter meaning but lacks details on return value specifics, error conditions, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools. Given the complexity (4 params, destructive hint, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: spreadsheet_id points to URL, sheet is name, count is number of rows, start_row is 0-based index with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 adds rows to a Google Spreadsheet sheet. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'append_rows', which likely appends at the end, but the mention of 'start_row' implies insertion at a specific position, providing some distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_rows' or other row manipulation tools. The description only explains parameter behavior (e.g., start_row default) but not the context for tool selection.

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

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

The description explains the behavior of appending after the last row with content, adding value beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations, but could mention potential side effects like overwriting if there is no blank row.

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 with a clear structure: purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. The example is helpful but adds some length; however, it is justified.

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 covers purpose, parameter details, and return value. For a straightforward append operation, this is complete. The tool has no complex behaviors or edge cases that would require more.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description defines all three parameters and provides a concrete example for 'values.' This compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds significant meaning.

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 appends rows after the last row with content, distinguishing it from tools like update_cells (specific range) and add_rows (add empty rows). The verb 'append' and resource 'rows' are specific, and the usage example solidifies the purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Useful for adding log entries or new records without knowing the exact row number,' which guides when to use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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

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

The description discloses the basic behavior (resizing to fit content) and is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not add further context beyond what annotations already provide, such as whether it expands or shrinks cells, or if it modifies the sheet permanently. With annotations already indicating destructiveness, the description provides minimal extra transparency.

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 sentences plus a clear Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and provides parameter details in a structured format without any redundant or verbose content. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema and 5 parameters (2 required), the description covers all parameters with reasonable detail. It does not explain return values deeply, but the output schema exists to handle that. The description is complete enough for a focused auto-resize operation, though it could mention that it modifies existing sheets.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing and explaining each parameter in the Args section. It clarifies default values (e.g., dimension defaults to 'COLUMNS', start_index defaults to 0) and provides useful details like 'end_index is exclusive; omit to resize all'. This adds meaning beyond the input schema's property names and types.

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's purpose: 'Auto-resize columns or rows to fit content.' It uses a specific verb (auto-resize) and resource (columns/rows), distinguishing it from siblings like 'format_cells' or 'update_cells' which don't handle auto-resizing.

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 tool should be used when you need to resize columns/rows to fit content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description reinforces this by listing operations like insertDimension, deleteDimension, and updateCells, which imply mutability. However, it does not go beyond annotations to discuss side effects, error handling, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with purpose but becomes lengthy with many examples and operation details. It is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but could be more concise by reducing verbosity in the operation list.

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 tool's complexity and zero schema description coverage, the description is quite complete with examples and return type mentioned. However, it lacks mention of error scenarios, operation limits, or specifics about the output schema content.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It explains spreadsheet_id as 'found in the URL' and thoroughly describes the requests parameter with examples of valid operations, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's empty 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 it executes a batch update on a Google Spreadsheet using the full batchUpdate endpoint, providing access to all batchUpdate operations. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like add_rows or update_cells by emphasizing the batch nature.

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 explains the types of operations available (addSheet, insertDimension, etc.) and provides examples, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., batch_update_cells for cell updates only). It lacks direct exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description only says 'update' without clarifying that overwrites values. It does not disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 with a one-sentence summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool is complex with multiple ranges, but the description lacks context on limits, error handling, or authorization. The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but additional usage guidance would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters, including an example for 'ranges'. It adds value over the bare schema, though it could specify valid range formats or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Batch update multiple ranges in a Google Spreadsheet.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'update_cells' (single range) among siblings.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for batch updates of multiple ranges). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings like 'update_cells' or 'append_rows', leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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

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

The description adds the detail that clearing formatting is optional, which goes beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as impact on formulas, reversal possibilities, or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The structured 'Args' list presents each parameter efficiently without unnecessary words.

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 low schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics. However, it lacks context about side effects or comparison with similar tools, which would make it more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all four parameters, including examples for 'range' and default behavior for 'clear_format'.

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 'Clear data from a range of cells', specifying the verb 'clear' and the resource 'range of cells'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_cells' or 'delete_rows_columns' by focusing on clearing values within a range.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to related operations like deleting cells or updating cells.

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

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description does not clarify what is destructive (e.g., overwriting destination). It also omits side effects like whether the source remains unchanged.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter descriptions in a structured docstring format. Every line adds value.

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 covers the minimal purpose and parameters but omits important context such as error handling, behavior on duplicate destination names, or prerequisites like spreadsheet IDs.

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%, but the description lists each parameter with a short description (e.g., 'Source spreadsheet ID'), adding some meaning beyond schema titles. However, it lacks details like data types or validation.

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 (Copy) and resource (sheet from one spreadsheet to another), differentiating it from related siblings like move_sheet and duplicate_sheet.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as duplicate_sheet or move_sheet. The description lacks context for selection.

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

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating mutation, which the description aligns with by stating 'Create'. However, beyond annotations, the description adds little behavioral detail (e.g., it does not state that the spreadsheet must already exist, though 'existing' is mentioned).

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 very concise (three short lines), front-loading the purpose and including Args/Returns without unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, clear purpose, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It mentions 'existing spreadsheet' and the return value is covered by output schema. Minor gaps like error handling or uniqueness of title are not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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%, but the description provides minimal explanations for each parameter: 'The ID of the spreadsheet' and 'The title for the new sheet'. This adds some value beyond names but lacks format, constraints, or examples.

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 'Create' and the resource 'new sheet tab in an existing Google Spreadsheet', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_spreadsheet' that create entire spreadsheets.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_sheet' or 'duplicate_sheet'. The description does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use.

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

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a creation operation. It adds value by explaining folder_id default behavior and return info, beyond the 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 concise with clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' blocks, though the 'Args' section is slightly verbose for a single line.

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 tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context, including return value information.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to both parameters: title and folder_id, including default behavior for folder_id.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new Google Spreadsheet.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_spreadsheets or upload_excel.

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 explains parameters and default behavior for folder_id, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_excel or 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.

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description aligns with this but adds no extra context about irreversibility, data shifting, or other effects. It meets expectations but does not exceed them given the 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?

The description is extremely concise with a clear two-sentence intro followed by a bulleted argument list. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and the destructive annotation, the description covers the core functionality. However, it could add context about the permanence of deletion and that rows/columns shift, which would make it more complete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter meaningfully (e.g., '0-based start index (inclusive)'), adding significant value beyond the raw 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 explicitly states 'Delete rows or columns from a sheet', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings that add, format, or clear without deleting structure.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_range or when not to use it. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating the tool modifies state. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameters and default behavior for new_name. It does not elaborate on destructive aspects or side effects.

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: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a structured Args list and Returns note. Every sentence is informative and 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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return value. It lacks explicit context about when to use vs. siblings, but otherwise meets completeness needs.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (spreadsheet_id, sheet, new_name) and its purpose, including the default for new_name. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Duplicate a sheet/tab within the same spreadsheet.' This specifies the verb (duplicate) and resource (sheet/tab) and differentiates from the sibling 'copy_sheet' by limiting scope to the same spreadsheet.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_sheet, create_sheet). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, explaining that the tool downloads and saves a file locally, with auto-generated path support. However, it omits details like size limits, permission requirements, or error handling.

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: a brief purpose statement, followed by parameter explanations, and a return value note. No extraneous information is present.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, one required, and an output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use parameters, and what is returned. It could mention non-destructive nature or interaction with file system permissions, but is largely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by explaining the purpose of spreadsheet_id, listing format options ('xlsx', 'csv', 'pdf', 'ods'), and noting that output_path is auto-generated if omitted. This adds significant meaning over the raw 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 explicitly states the action 'Export (download) a Google Spreadsheet' and lists the supported formats (Excel, CSV, PDF). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sheet_data or update_cells.

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 such as get_sheet_data or uploading files. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or comparative use cases.

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

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

The description confirms the read-only nature (matching the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true') and adds detail about the return value (list of found cells with location and value). It does not mention potential performance impacts or edge cases, but overall provides good transparency beyond 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 well-structured with an 'Args' list and 'Returns' statement. It is reasonably concise, though the 'Args:' prefix could be streamlined. Every sentence adds value, and the format aids readability.

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 tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return format. It does not explicitly address edge cases like empty results but is complete enough for standard use.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter clearly, including how to obtain 'spreadsheet_id' (from URL), the role of 'query', and defaults for 'case_sensitive' (False) and 'max_results' (50). This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 finds cells containing a specific value in a Google Spreadsheet, using a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('cells'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_spreadsheets' (which searches across spreadsheets) and 'get_sheet_data' (which retrieves all data).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the tool's function, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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

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

Annotations set destructiveHint: true, but the description does not elaborate on destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing formatting). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.

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 clear one-liner and a parameter list. It is concise but the Args block adds necessary detail. No redundant sentences.

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 tool's complexity (10 params, destructive hint, output schema exists), the description covers most aspects. It explains all parameters but could mention behavior on omitted optionals or cumulative effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by adding examples for number_format, font_color, and background_color. However, some parameters (e.g., bold, italic) lack examples, keeping it from a top score.

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 'Apply formatting to a range of cells' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_conditional_format' or 'batch_update_cells' by listing many specific formatting options.

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 (e.g., 'add_conditional_format' for conditional rules). It does not mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true; description adds value by explaining return format (list with author, content, anchor cell, resolved status) and default parameter values (include_resolved=False, max_results=50).

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter list. No wasted words; front-loaded with action and resource.

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 read-only list tool with output schema present, description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. No gaps given the context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains all three parameters: spreadsheet_id (required), include_resolved (boolean, default False), max_results (integer, default 50). Adds meaning beyond schema titles and types.

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 'Get all comments on a spreadsheet.' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment and resolve_comment.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the agent must infer from the name and context. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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

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

The description explains the return format (list of dicts with original query and data or error), which adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It discloses that the tool fetches data and can return errors per query. No contradictions with 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 concise, starting with the purpose and then detailing the parameters and return format in structured sections. There is slight redundancy (e.g., repeating 'A list of dictionaries'), but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter details with example, and return structure. No major gaps exist for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides thorough parameter semantics: it specifies that 'queries' is a list of dicts with required keys 'spreadsheet_id', 'sheet', and 'range', and includes an example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 'Get data from multiple specific ranges in Google Spreadsheets', using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'multiple specific ranges'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sheet_data (single range) and get_multiple_spreadsheet_summary (summary of multiple spreadsheets). The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 tool is for multiple ranges but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_sheet_data for single ranges. There is no mention of when not to use it or context for batching. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds context about returning summaries with errors, but does not mention potential performance issues or auth requirements.

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, well-structured with purpose, args, and returns clearly separated. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately summarizes return structure. It covers the main functionality, though it could mention handling multiple spreadsheets simultaneously more explicitly.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: spreadsheet_ids as a list of IDs and rows_to_fetch with default 5. This adds substantial value beyond the 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'multiple Google Spreadsheets', and details the content (sheet names, headers, first few rows). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_sheet_data or list_sheets.

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 obtaining a summary of multiple spreadsheets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sheet_data or list_sheets.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns a list with author, date, and modification details. No contradictions, but missing details on pagination or rate limits.

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?

Concise and well-structured; no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, read-only), the description covers all needed context, especially since output schema exists and is partially described.

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%, so the description provides necessary meaning for both parameters, including the default for max_results. Adds value beyond the 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 it retrieves revision history of a spreadsheet, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings which are mostly write operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. However, the tool's read-only nature and focus on history imply usage, but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it warns that setting include_grid_data to True significantly increases response size and token usage. No contradictions with 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 structured with clear Args and Returns sections, and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficiently written but could be slightly more concise by omitting the 'Returns' line if the output schema covers it.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers all input parameters adequately. The tool is simple and the description is sufficient for correct use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains every parameter in detail: spreadsheet_id's location, sheet name meaning, range notation, and include_grid_data's performance implications. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 uses specific verbs ('Get data from a specific sheet') and resources ('Google Spreadsheet'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_sheet_formulas or get_multiple_sheet_data.

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 that this tool is for fetching data (not formulas or multiple sheets), but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternative tools. Still, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds that the tool returns a 2D array of formulas, providing useful output context beyond 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is slightly structured but not overly verbose. Could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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 read-only tool, the description covers the main functionality and output format. However, it doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., empty sheet, invalid range) or error behavior, which would enhance completeness.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: spreadsheet_id location, sheet naming, and range format with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 retrieves formulas from a specific sheet in a Google Spreadsheet, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sheet_data which returns values, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sheet_data for values or find_in_spreadsheet. Missing context on prerequisites (e.g., sheet must exist, permissions).

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns a list of folders with ID, name, and parent information. It confirms no destructive effects and explains the optional parameter's impact.

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 with two short paragraphs, including Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and clear, with no wasted words.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers its behavior and return value adequately. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detailed return descriptions.

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%, but the tool description fully explains the sole parameter: 'Optional Google Drive folder ID to search within. If not provided, searches the root of My Drive.' This adds essential meaning beyond the 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'folders in Google Drive', and specifies the behavior with and without a parent folder. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are all spreadsheet-related.

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 explains when to use the parent_folder_id parameter and default behavior, giving clear context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tools are all for spreadsheets, so the usage context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond returning a list of sheet names. No mention of limits, pagination, or error scenarios.

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, well-structured with Args/Returns sections, and contains no unnecessary words while conveying essential information.

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 simple read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics adequately. It lacks details on error handling or non-existent spreadsheets, but is complete enough for a straightforward list operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the spreadsheet_id parameter's meaning and where to find it, adding significant value beyond the bare 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 ('List all sheets'), the resource ('sheets in a Google Spreadsheet'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_sheet or rename_sheet.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_spreadsheets or get_multiple_sheet_data. It does not mention prerequisites beyond the spreadsheet ID or 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.

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as the default folder behavior when no folder_id is provided, which helps the agent understand the tool's operation.

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 with two main sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections, no unnecessary words, and front-loaded key information.

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 covers the input parameter behavior, indicates the return structure (list of spreadsheets with ID and title), and is complete for a simple listing tool, especially with an output schema assumed present.

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?

Even though the input schema has 0% description coverage, the tool description provides detailed explanation of the folder_id parameter, including its optional nature and default behavior, effectively compensating for schema gaps.

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 'List all spreadsheets' with a specific resource and action, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'search_spreadsheets' and 'list_sheets' by focusing on listing vs searching or listing sheets within a spreadsheet.

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 explains when to use the tool (to list spreadsheets in a folder) and mentions optional parameter for folder selection, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'search_spreadsheets'.

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

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating potential destructive effects. The description adds that the tool can also 'unmerge', which implies reversibility, but does not detail consequences like data loss or cell content handling. It neither contradicts nor significantly adds to the annotation's behavioral signal.

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 sentences for the main action, then a clean Args/Returns listing. Every element is necessary and immediately informative. The front-loaded purpose sentence allows quick comprehension.

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 4 parameters, an output schema, and a destructive hint, the description covers the essential input details and return value concept ('Result of the merge operation'). It lacks potential caveats about data concatenation or error conditions, but for a straightforward merge tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains each parameter: spreadsheet_id and sheet by name, range as 'A1 notation (e.g., 'A1:C3')', and merge_type with enum values ('MERGE_ALL', 'MERGE_COLUMNS', 'MERGE_ROWS', 'UNMERGE'). These details add meaning beyond the bare schema properties, improving understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Merge (or unmerge) cells in a range', clearly identifying the verb (merge/unmerge) and resource (cells in a range). The title from annotations is 'Merge Cells', reinforcing the purpose. No sibling tools perform merging, so it is well-differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for merging vs. other cell operations like updating cells or formatting. The sibling list includes many cell-related tools, but no comparative information is given.

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

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true but description only says 'move' and 'reorder', which is not necessarily destructive. Does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond the basic operation.

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?

Very concise: one-line purpose, Args section with clear explanations, Returns section. No unnecessary text.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters, but return value is vague ('Result of the move operation'). No mention of what the result object contains, even though an output schema exists. Could be more complete.

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?

Each parameter is explained with a brief description (spreadsheet ID, sheet name, 0-based index), adding value over the schema which only has titles. No examples or constraints, but sufficient.

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?

Clearly states the tool moves a sheet/tab to reorder tabs, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like copy_sheet or rename_sheet.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. Does not specify context or restrictions (e.g., when reordering is needed versus other operations).

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

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, but the description does not explain the behavioral implications (e.g., that protection restricts editing, that it may require permissions, or that it is reversible). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the parameter list.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is concise and uses clear language, though the formatting could be slightly more compact.

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 covering parameters, the description lacks context about side effects (e.g., requiring permissions, interactions with other tools like clear_range), reversibility, or output details. The Returns line is generic ('Result of the protection operation'), providing no concrete information.

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 comprehensively explains all 6 parameters in the Args section, providing semantic meaning (e.g., 'Omit to protect the entire sheet.'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter's purpose.

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's purpose: 'Protect a range or entire sheet from editing.' It uses a specific verb ('Protect') and identifies the resource ('range or entire sheet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clear_range or format_cells.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. It simply lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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

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

Annotations set destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., effects on formulas, permissions, rollback). It merely restates the operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the main sentence. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' lines are redundant given the schema and output schema, adding unnecessary verbosity without value.

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 tool with three required parameters and a clear operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it and does not explain the return value format, which is partially addressed by the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names in 'Args' but adds no additional meaning (e.g., format of spreadsheet ID, uniqueness constraints for sheet names). The information is identical to the schema titles.

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's purpose: 'Rename a sheet in a Google Spreadsheet.' It uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('sheet'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_sheet' or 'copy_sheet'.

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. Siblings like 'duplicate_sheet' or 'move_sheet' are listed, but the description does not help the agent differentiate based on operation intent.

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

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, so description need not repeat. It adds optional reply detail but lacks other behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, state changes).

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?

Exceptionally concise: 3 lines for purpose, args, returns. No extraneous text. Information is well-structured and 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?

Given a simple tool with output schema, description covers essential but misses edge cases (e.g., re-resolving) and vague return ('Result of the resolve operation'). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

0% schema coverage means description must compensate. Args are listed with minimal phrases like 'The ID of the spreadsheet', which adds little beyond parameter names. No guidance on format or origin of IDs.

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 'Resolve a comment' with a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_comment and get_comments.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives despite existence of add_comment and get_comments as siblings.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying search scope (name and content), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior when results exceed max_results.

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 with two brief sentences for purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides value, and the structure is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

With 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It explains what the tool does, how to use parameters, and the query scope. No missing critical context for a search tool.

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%, meaning the input schema provides only type and default. The description compensates by explaining the query searches in name and content with examples, and specifying max_results default (20) and max (100). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 'Search for spreadsheets in Google Drive by name or content', specifying the action, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_spreadsheets' (lists all) and 'find_in_spreadsheet' (searches within a specific spreadsheet).

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 query examples and parameter limits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_spreadsheets' or 'find_in_spreadsheet'. It lacks guidance on exclusions or 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.

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true is present, but the description does not elaborate on what 'destructive' means for a tab color change. It also does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description adds the hex format guidance but lacks depth beyond that.

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 very concise: one line for purpose, then a clear Args section, and a Returns line. Every part serves a purpose with no redundant or extraneous information. It is well-organized and 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?

For a simple tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage (color format, special values). It does not mention that spreadsheet_id must be a valid ID or that sheet must exist, but the output schema exists to clarify return values. Overall, it is nearly complete with only minor gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. For 'color', it provides concrete examples (e.g., '#FF0000') and special values ('#FFFFFF' or 'none'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states 'Change the color of a sheet tab,' which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like rename_sheet or move_sheet, which perform different actions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or situations where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the action name.

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

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that sharing is done via email, notifications can be sent (default true), and returns a dictionary of successes and failures. This adds useful behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to parse. It is moderately concise, but every sentence is informative; could be slightly more terse but still effective.

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 presence of an output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters with examples, and return structure. Missing details like error handling or permission requirements, but overall sufficient for a sharing tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: spreadsheet_id as ID, recipients as a list of dicts with email and role examples, and send_notification with default. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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 tool shares a Google Spreadsheet with multiple users via email and assigns roles. It uses a specific verb (share) and resource (spreadsheet), and there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, ensuring distinction.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when needing to share a spreadsheet with specific roles via email). No explicit alternatives are provided, but since no other sharing tool exists among siblings, the guideline is clear enough for selection.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation 'destructiveHint: true'. It does not mention in-place modification, handling of headers, or impact on data validity. The annotation already indicates destructiveness, so the description fails to expand on that.

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, structured with an Args list and Returns line. No redundant sentences; every part adds value. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 sort operation, the description is largely complete. It covers all input parameters and notes a return value. However, it could mention whether sorting is stable or respects headers, but given the output schema existence, completeness is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief explanations: 'sort_column: Column letter to sort by (e.g., 'B')' and 'order: 'ASCENDING' or 'DESCENDING''. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though format details for 'range' could be improved.

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 explicitly states 'Sort a range of cells by a column,' which clearly identifies the action (sort), resource (range of cells), and criteria (column). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_filter', 'clear_range', etc.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use sorting versus alternatives (e.g., using filters or manual reordering). It merely lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, confirming mutation. Description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., overwrite behavior, response format). Neutral alignment.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured args list. Every element is necessary with no redundancy.

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?

Output description is vague ('Result of the update operation') and does not specify return structure. Given 4 required params and output schema existence, more detail on return values and behavior would improve completeness.

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?

Description adds meaning for each parameter beyond the schema: spreadsheet_id location, sheet name, range in A1 notation, data as 2D array. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well, though data format specifics are lacking.

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 states verb 'Update' and resource 'cells in a Google Spreadsheet', making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'batch_update_cells', which has similar purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_update_cells, append_rows, or format_cells. Lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

Description mentions the file conversion and return values, but lacks details on file size limits, error handling, or behavior if file already exists. Annotations provide destructiveHint which is consistent.

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?

Very concise: one-line summary followed by clear parameter descriptions. No redundant information.

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?

Covers main purpose, parameters, and return values. Missing details on file size limits or error scenarios, but adequate for a straightforward upload tool.

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?

Each parameter is described with its purpose beyond the schema: file_path as local path, title as optional name, folder_id as optional Drive folder. Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds significant value.

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?

Clearly states the tool uploads an Excel/CSV file and converts it to a Google Spreadsheet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_spreadsheet (creates empty spreadsheet) and other spreadsheet manipulation tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_spreadsheet. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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