export_view_excel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by describing the formatting details (frozen header, auto-filter, auto-fit) and the sheet_name default behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or permission requirements, 'export' implies a non-mutating operation, and the description is sufficiently transparent for this tool.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, efficiently contrasts with the sibling tool, and ends with parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return values need no description. The description covers the key aspects: what it does, why it differs from CSV, and the optional parameter behavior. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'sheet_name' parameter well (purpose and default), but does not explicitly explain 'view_id'. However, 'view_id' is obvious from the tool name and context ('view's underlying data'), so the gap is minor. Partial compensation for the low coverage warrants a 3.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a view's underlying data as a formatted .xlsx workbook.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'export_view_csv' by explaining the exact differences (bold frozen header, auto-filter, auto-fitted columns), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool 'export_view_csv' and provides a clear comparison, implying when to use this tool (when a formatted spreadsheet is needed) versus the CSV export. This gives explicit usage guidance without needing further elaboration.

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