read_sheet_text

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the coordinate system (image px, origin top-left, y down, render scale 2.0), explains the return format, and notes how sheet payloads carry dimensions in both px and pt. No behavioral surprises are left unmentioned.

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 five sentences long, front-loaded with the core functionality ('The sheet's text with positions'), followed by optional behavior, use cases, coordinate details, and dims note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, one nested) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be reiterated), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter formats, coordinate system, and typical use cases. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 2 parameters (sheet, region) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the optional region parameter's format and coordinate significance, and it clarifies coordinate space for region values. The 'sheet' parameter is not elaborated, but its purpose is inferable from context. The description adds meaningful 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 clearly states the tool reads sheet text with positions, including the structure '[{str, x, y}]' and joined text. It provides concrete use cases (title blocks, room labels, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sheet_info' (metadata) or 'measure_*' (measurements), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'Use it to read title blocks, room labels, finish schedules, and scale notes,' giving clear guidance on when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings, though the context of siblings (delete, measure, etc.) makes the use case distinct.

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