List worksheets

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: it surfaces used ranges and named ranges, and discloses the binary-format limitation. This tells the agent upfront why a request may fail on older workbook formats.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide a usage directive and a format compatibility warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only listing tool with a rich output schema already present, the description covers everything the agent needs to decide when to call it and what to expect. The missing return-value details are supplied by the output schema, so nothing essential is absent.

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 100%: file_path is documented as an absolute path and timeout as seconds for Excel to answer. The description does not need to repeat these details, but it also does not add extra parameter semantics 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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and a concrete resource ('worksheets in an Excel file'), then enumerates the returned details: used ranges, hidden status, and named ranges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like xlide_list_forms and xlide_list_procedures.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction ('Call this before reading cells') and explains why, so the agent knows it is the prerequisite discovery step for cell reads. It also names exclusion criteria by listing supported extensions and explicitly stating that .xlsb/.xls files are not readable by this server.

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