worksheet_to_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the gridding process and return value, but omits potential side effects (e.g., whether source data is modified), prerequisites (e.g., numeric columns), or error handling. With no annotations, a score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete disclosure.

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 one-line summary, a contextual sentence, then an Args/Returns list. Every sentence adds necessary information 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, matrix creation), the description covers inputs, defaults, and return value. It does not detail output schema specifics or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema likely compensates. Slightly incomplete for a fully autonomous agent.

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 clear, meaningful parameter explanations (e.g., 'Source workbook name', 'X column (1-based)') and notes default values for rows and cols. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare 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 converts XYZ worksheet columns into a matrix via gridding, specifically to enable 3D surface/contour/heatmap plots. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_matrix (which probably creates an empty matrix) and get_matrix_data (which reads but doesn't convert).

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 scattered XYZ data to make a matrix for 3D plotting, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. However, the context signals provide enough differentiation.

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