Audit the workbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It lists concrete behavioral aspects (e.g., circular references with example chains, volatile functions, hardcoded constants) which go beyond the tool name. However, it does not state output format or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though 'audit' implies non-destructive. Overall, it adds substantial transparency beyond mere existence.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with a colon and a clear list. It front-loads the core purpose ('Risk report across the whole model') and then enumerates specifics without any fluff or repetition.

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 description covers the main scope comprehensively: it lists six distinct audit categories, which is substantial for a reporting tool. There is no output schema, so the return value is not fully specified, but 'Risk report' implies a textual summary. For moderate complexity with a single parameter, this is sufficiently complete.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, which already documents 'Path to an .xlsx workbook'. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 produces a risk report across the whole model, listing specific checks (circular references, volatile functions, etc.). This verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like workbook_overview or list_formulas by focusing on audit risks rather than general overview or formula listing.

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 implies usage: use this tool to get a comprehensive model-wide risk report. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the specific scope ('across the whole model') and distinct checks provide clear context that differentiates it from sibling tools.

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