Elements List Workbook Controls

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so credit goes to what the description adds: it discloses that pagination is followed to the last page and that the response aggregates entries from every page with nextPage null / hasMore false, so the caller must not re-paginate. That is genuine non-obvious behavioral context; only auth or failure behavior is left unstated.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with the pagination/return-shape detail after it. The second paragraph is dense with Sigma-internal phrasing and nested parentheticals, but each clause conveys a distinct part of the return contract rather than restating the name.

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 fully enumerated, and the description still adds the key aggregation/pagination fact an agent needs to interpret that output. Safety is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the undocumented workbook_id parameter, which is the only real omission.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the burden — but it never mentions workbook_id, its expected format, or where to obtain it, only saying results are 'in a workbook'. At best it lets the reader infer that the parameter scopes the listing, which adds almost nothing over the schema's property name.

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 control elements (filters, parameters) in a workbook' — and disambiguates the jargon 'controls' with a parenthetical. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as elements_list_workbook_elements, elements_list_workbook_page_elements, or workbooks_list_report_controls, so an agent still has to infer which list to use.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource named: use it when you need a workbook's controls. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no exclusion naming the sibling list tools (workbook elements, page elements, report controls) that could be confused with it.

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