excel_inspect

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool inspects basic info but does not explicitly declare it is read-only or describe any side effects. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. Every part is necessary.

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 is simple and has an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not mention edge cases or output format, but with the output schema present, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides a description for file_path, but overall schema description coverage is 0% (likely due to nested defs not counted). The description adds value by specifying what information is retrieved (sheets, rows, columns) beyond the parameter 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 inspects basic Excel file information including number of sheets and rows/columns. It distinguishes from sibling tools like excel_profile_structure and excel_read_range_normalized, which likely have different scopes.

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 use for initial overview of Excel files but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or when to use alternatives. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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