sheets_list_tabs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that it returns a string containing a JSON list of sheet_id, title, index, row_count, and column_count, and by scoping the behavior to 'all sheet tabs.' No contradiction 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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the exact return contract. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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 simple read-only list tool, the description fully covers the supported operation and expected output. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, the schema covers the single parameter, and the description covers the return shape. Nothing critical is missing.

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 single parameter spreadsheet_id is documented in the input schema as 'The spreadsheet ID (from its URL).' The tool description itself only refers to 'a spreadsheet' and adds no extra detail about how to obtain or format the ID. Since the schema already provides the necessary parameter meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List all sheet tabs in a spreadsheet with their IDs and dimensions.' It clearly names the output fields and distinguishes this from cell-range operations. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this tool is for retrieving tab-level metadata rather than cell data, and the return format reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_read_range, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance remains mostly implicit.

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