export_sheet_to_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses delimiter joining behavior, absence of CSV quoting, inline vs file-writing output modes, default cell_range behavior, and the exact return dict. It omits minor details like overwrite behavior or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.

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: a one-sentence summary up front, a key behavioral note, a clear bullet list mapping to parameters, and a return-value list. Every sentence adds information, and no redundant or filler content 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers all parameters, return values, and key behavioral options. Minor gaps remain around when to prefer this over sibling export tools and what happens on overwrite or error, but the essential calling context is well covered.

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 for all five parameters. It does so thoroughly, explaining file_path, sheet_name, output_path including the special 'return inline' value, delimiter choices with default, and cell_range with example and default behavior.

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 action and resource: 'Export a single Excel sheet to a plain-text delimited file.' It further distinguishes itself from likely siblings by emphasizing 'no CSV quoting applied' and a plain text format, differentiating it from export_sheet_to_csv and export_sheet_to_markdown.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: generating flat, human-readable text output without CSV quoting, and supporting inline return for direct content access. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the behavior described implies the selection criteria.

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