getWorkbookContent

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 transparently explains the tool's process: takes the RTF URL, downloads the RTF file, parses it to plain text, and returns formatted workbook content. This goes beyond a simple 'get' and reveals the underlying workflow. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only parse operation, this level of detail is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage sequencing and process details. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get'), includes a step indicator, and avoids unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 has a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover purpose, usage, process, and return value. It does all of this: it explains the inputs (RTF URL from getWorkbookLinks), the process (download, parse), and the output (formatted workbook content with line breaks). The flow context is also provided, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage for the 'url' parameter is 100%, already explaining that it is the RTF file URL from getWorkbookLinks results. The tool description reinforces this by stating it takes the RTF URL from Step 1, adding context about the source and format. This achieves the baseline of 3 and earns an extra point for reinforcing the parameter's provenance.

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 purpose: 'Get the actual CLM workbook content' after the user chooses a week. It specifies the resource (CLM workbook), the verb (get), and distinguishes from sibling tools like getWatchtowerContent by explicitly referencing getWorkbookLinks as the source. The step numbering and mention of RTF parsing make the function unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool AFTER getWorkbookLinks when user specifies which week they want.' It even gives example week formats. This clearly sequences the tool relative to its sibling and explains the prerequisite, leaving no ambiguity about when to select it.

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