Inspect workbook roster candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the extra guarantee about not transmitting student data, which provides reassurance beyond the annotation. It does not detail the exact report format, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand the operation.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key safety property with no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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 inspection tool, the description covers the action and safety guarantee, but it omits how the reported column groups are returned (list, structured object, etc.) and how they should be used with downstream tools like preview_roster_import. Given no output schema exists, this lack of return-format information is a notable gap.

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 only parameter, workbookPath, is not described beyond its name, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify the expected path format, file type, or how the workbook is accessed, forcing the agent to infer from the parameter name alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with a single parameter.

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 states a specific action (scan workbook) and outcome (report candidate class, seat-number, and student-name column groups), clearly distinguishing it from import/apply operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with verify_roster_against_workbook, 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 phrase 'without importing or transmitting student data' implies this is a safe pre-import inspection step, giving context on when it is appropriate. But it does not name sibling tools like verify or preview, nor does it specify when to choose this over them, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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