Workbook overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It specifies what the tool returns (structural details), and the phrasing 'overview' and 'map' implies a read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly state safety (no modification) or mention error cases, which would have made it fully transparent.

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 only two sentences, the first giving a concise list of what the tool returns and the second using a helpful metaphor. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and clear structural return content, the description is complete. It tells the user exactly what to expect and when to use it, without needing to describe return formats or additional options.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path', which already has a descriptive comment. The description does not add any further meaning or nuance to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states what the tool does: it provides the structure of an .xlsx workbook, including sheets with dimensions and formula counts, defined names, external workbook links, and merged cells. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as 'the map you need before tracing or auditing.'

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?

Explicitly tells the user when to use this tool: as a preliminary step before tracing or auditing, which are clearly related to sibling tools (trace_cell, audit_workbook). It implies this tool should be used first to get an overview, providing context for alternatives.

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