sigma_get_element_columns

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the 'List' verb. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose any additional traits such as output format, filtering limitations, or access requirements. It is entirely redundant with the tool name and 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the verb and quickly communicates the resource and scope, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that cover safety, a brief description may suffice. However, the description lacks any usage guidance or differentiation from similar column-listing tools, making it minimally complete but not richly contextual.

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%, but the description's 'specific element' and 'workbook' map naturally to the required element_id and workbook_id parameters. However, it provides no elaboration on parameter constraints or relationships beyond what the schema field names already convey. This partially compensates for the low coverage but does not fully explain parameter semantics.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('columns'), and the specific scope ('for a specific element in a workbook'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbook_columns and sigma_list_columns_for_table, which operate at different granularity levels.

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 phrase 'for a specific element in a workbook' gives clear context that this tool is appropriate when an element_id and workbook_id are known and columns for that element are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection.

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