List worksheets

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavior context: format support differences, the Windows/Excel requirement for .xlsb and .xls, the reduced survey on that path, and error markers such as hidden_error and pivot_tables_error. It also states that malformed surveys are refused rather than returned partially.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps most sentences informative. It is slightly repetitive, since the first sentence lists pivot tables, chart sheets, and named ranges and the third sentence revisits that support on .xlsx/.xlsm/.xlam, but the repetition serves format-specific clarity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it already covers the important behavioral edges: supported formats, degraded .xlsb/.xls behavior, error markers, and refusal on malformed surveys. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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%, so file_path and timeout are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or argument-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: list worksheets in an Excel file, with an explicit inventory of what is returned (used ranges, hidden state, pivot tables, chart sheets, named ranges). It also distinguishes the tool from cell-reading siblings by telling the agent to call it before reading cells.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: call before reading cells so the requested range is known to hold data. It also documents format-dependent behavior for .xlsx/.xlsm/.xlam versus .xlsb/.xls. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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