sigma_get_workbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not describe what 'metadata' includes, whether the workbook must exist, or any access requirements. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no added behavioral clarity.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no filler or unnecessary detail. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces the score from 5, but for a simple get operation this length is appropriate.

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?

While an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description lacks key contextual information. It does not explain how to use the workbook_id parameter, provide any usage guidance, or clarify what metadata is returned. For a one-parameter tool, it is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps in usability.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, workbook_id, but no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what workbook_id should be or how to obtain it. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 'Get workbook metadata' – a specific verb and resource. It is easy to understand the tool's function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbooks or sigma_get_workbook_version_history, so it loses a point for not distinguishing among alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. It is simply a bare statement of the operation, so usage context is entirely absent.

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