Inspect workbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it confirms the operation is confined to KINGWORKBOOK_ROOT and, importantly, that no cell values are returned — a behavioral trait an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The read-only nature and the root constraint are front-loaded, and the return-field list is compressed into a single clause. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: supported formats, path root, read-only semantics, and the fact that values are withheld. Return-value details are left to the output schema, which is the right division of labor.

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 has 100% schema description coverage with an example ("reports/monthly.xlsx"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the KINGWORKBOOK_ROOT anchoring and adds no format, path-resolution, or error semantics beyond it — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and scope ("Read-only profile of a CSV or XLSX file inside KINGWORKBOOK_ROOT") and enumerates exactly what it returns: sheet names, headers, row counts, blank counts, types, formula counts. It is clearly distinct from compare_workbooks and reconcile_totals, though the formula-count return slightly overlaps check_formula_integrity without the description drawing that boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: "read-only profile ... without cell values" suggests using this for metadata reconnaissance rather than data extraction, and the root-scoped path suggests it must run before other workbook tools. No sentence explicitly says when to choose this over check_formula_integrity or compare_workbooks, and no prerequisites or exclusions are named.

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