Sigma List Org Workbook Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety or pagination implications. The description adds the org-wide scope but no further behavioral details like rate limits or response completeness beyond what the annotations imply. It is not contradictory.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and scope, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It does not elaborate on pagination behavior, but the schema and openWorldHint annotation fill that gap. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sigma_list_workbook_agents, which falls under usage guidelines rather than completeness.

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%, and the description makes no mention of page_size or page_token, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not explain how pagination works or that 'all' may require multiple pages.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('workbook agents'), and a scope ('across the organization'), clearly distinguishing this org-wide listing tool from the sibling sigma_list_workbook_agents, which presumably targets a single workbook. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'across the organization' provides clear context that this tool is for org-wide listing rather than per-workbook listing. While it does not explicitly name the alternative or state 'use sigma_list_workbook_agents for a specific workbook', the scope implies the distinction clearly.

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