excel_list_sheets

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: cell text and sheet names are untrusted (a prompt-injection caution) and the path must be absolute and inside EXCEL_ALLOWED_ROOTS, which is a sandbox/auth constraint not captured in the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by two security-relevant constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key operational constraints (untrusted data, allowed roots), making it largely complete for a simple one-parameter read tool; only sibling routing 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 0%, so the single path parameter is undocumented in structured form. The description compensates by imposing two constraints on it (absolute path, must resolve inside EXCEL_ALLOWED_ROOTS), which materially shapes the value an agent must supply, though it doesn't specify format examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List sheet names and visibility.' An agent can tell this enumerates sheets, not their contents. However, it does not differentiate from the overlapping sibling excel_overview, which likely also summarizes sheets, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus excel_overview or excel_inspect_layout, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name. This is a clear gap given the clustered sibling set.

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