sigma_list_all_workbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: automatic pagination and full organizational scope, implying potentially large data retrieval and multiple API calls. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful expectations about execution cost and output volume.

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: 'List ALL workbooks in the organization, automatically following pagination.' It is front-loaded with the action and scope, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 parameterless list-all tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does (list all workbooks), its scope (organization), and a key behavior (auto-pagination). The output schema covers return values, so no further description is needed. This is a fully self-sufficient description.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, but it correctly emphasizes the tool's all-encompassing scope, which is the only 'semantic' aspect relevant for 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 the tool's function: 'List ALL workbooks in the organization' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workbooks'). The use of 'ALL' and 'organization' distinguishes it from siblings like sigma_list_workbooks, which likely offers filtered or paginated listing. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: retrieve every workbook without manual pagination. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the emphasis on 'ALL' and 'automatically following pagination' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. Given the sibling sigma_list_workbooks, the differentiation is evident even if not stated explicitly.

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