list_spreadsheets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only listing and describes the return format ('formatted list of spreadsheet files (name, ID, modified time)'). However, it does not mention authentication prerequisites, behavior on inaccessible accounts, or any authorization requirements, which are meaningful gaps for a Google Drive tool.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary value, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers invocation, parameter semantics, and return format. It is missing an explicit note about requiring prior Google authentication (especially given the start_google_auth sibling) and could reference alternative listing tools, so it is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining that user_google_email is the user's Google email and is required, and that max_results limits the result count with a default of 25. This adds human-readable meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults, though it could add constraints like supported range for max_results.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lists spreadsheets from Google Drive that the user has access to.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from generic Drive listing tools like list_drive_items by specifying spreadsheet type and access scope.

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 by framing the tool as a way to list accessible spreadsheets and documents required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_drive_files or list_drive_items, nor does it mention exclusions. The required user_google_email gives some context, but alternatives are not discussed.

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