excel_profile_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analyzing data types and merge status but omits important traits such as whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, error conditions, or if it modifies the file. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 core purpose without filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and 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?

The description provides the essential purpose but lacks context on the return value format (even though an output schema exists, the description could hint at what 'structural signature' entails). Given the presence of sibling tools and an output schema, the description is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (file_path, sheet, max_cols_to_scan, max_rows_to_scan), so schema description coverage is effectively high. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate or add value beyond the 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's purpose: analyzing the structural signature of a worksheet, including data types and merge status. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('worksheet structure signature'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like excel_inspect or excel_read_range_normalized.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent receives no guidance on context of use.

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