excel_sheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists sheets, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose whether it is non-destructive or any side effects. It also does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing file) or return format, but given the existence of an output schema, some of that may be covered. The description is not misleading but is minimal in behavioral disclosure.

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 is front-loaded with the action ('Liệt kê sheet') and immediately followed by the purpose ('trước khi quyết định đọc sheet nào'). Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter, list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return format), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what it does and when to use it. The only missing piece is explicit error/edge-case handling, but for a list operation, this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It mentions 'một file Excel', which tells the agent that the 'path' parameter should point to an Excel file. However, it does not specify format details, absolute/relative path requirements, or accepted extensions. This is partial compensation but not complete.

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 verb ('Liệt kê' = list) and a clear resource ('sheet của một file Excel' = sheets of an Excel file). It also adds context by indicating it should be used before deciding which sheet to read, which helps distinguish it from file_read or excel_write. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 implicitly gives usage guidance: use this tool to list sheets before reading one. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the phrase 'trước khi quyết định đọc sheet nào' clearly positions it in a workflow. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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