excel_read_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions truncation for large data, which is useful, but lacks other important details such as error handling (e.g., file not found), encoding, permissions, or whether the tool modifies the file. The description adds minimal value beyond basic purpose.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral note about truncation. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks information about error scenarios (file not found, sheet not found), performance, and does not mention the sibling tool for inspection. It is adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add any extra information about parameters (e.g., format constraints, examples). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description is neutral.

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 verb '读取' (read) and resource 'Excel 工作表内容' (Excel sheet content), with output format JSON. It specifies it supports reading a single sheet. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'excel_inspect_file', which might inspect structure rather than content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like excel_inspect_file. The only usage hint is about truncation for large data, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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