Project summary

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them with non-obvious behavior: has_vba_project is false on a macro-enabled file with no macros yet and the first xlide_write_module creates the project, each module carries a content_token for a guarded write, and unreadable summaries are reported as 'unknown' rather than empty. These are genuinely useful disclosure that the annotations cannot express, though response shape itself is left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope and contents, then the call-timing rule, then caveats. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct rule; the enumeration of summary contents is long, yet it is the tool's core value proposition so it earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still supplies the operational context an agent needs: when to call it, the empty-project caveat, the content_token handoff to guarded writes, the xlsb/xls fallback, and the unknown-vs-empty semantics. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter summary tool.

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% and the schema already documents file_path as 'Absolute path to the Office file.' The description reinforces the one-file scope ('one Office file', 'once per file') but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail about the parameter itself.

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 names a specific resource (one Office file) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: VBA modules with kinds and line counts, UserForms, Power Query queries, worksheets with used/named ranges, and protection/signature status. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like xlide_list_modules or xlide_list_sheets, which cover only one slice of the same file.

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 explicit timing ('Call this once per file before working on it') and an explicit alternative with its condition ('For .xlsb and .xls sheet details, call xlide_list_sheets on Windows with Excel'). The only minor gap is that it does not say when NOT to call it at all, but the routing is otherwise unambiguous.

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