Elements List Workbook Elements

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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive, so that safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: it auto-follows Sigma's pagination to the last page, aggregates entries across all pages, and always returns nextPage null / hasMore false. This is real disclosure an agent needs to reason about result completeness.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by pagination detail. The second sentence is dense and partly restates return keys that an output schema already carries, but the pagination-following behavior justifies most of it.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is somewhat redundant, but the description still covers purpose and the key behavioral fact (auto-pagination to the last page). The main gap is not situating it against the workbook-page and columns/controls siblings.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the burden falls on the description. The single parameter workbook_id is self-evident and the scope sentence implies it, but no explicit statement of what to pass or format is given. Adequate given only one obvious parameter.

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 all elements... in a workbook") and enumerates element types (tables, charts, controls, etc.), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling elements_list_workbook_page_elements, but the workbook-wide scope is clear from 'in a workbook'.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and the page-level and column/control siblings are not named as alternatives. The word 'all' and the workbook-level scope imply this is the broad listing rather than a page-scoped one, but the agent must infer the choice.

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