Sigma List Workbook Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the version-tag filtering behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose details like pagination, permissions, or output format beyond what the output schema provides.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the optional filter without any filler 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?

The description is sufficient for a simple list operation: it names the resource scope and the only optional filter. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does so implicitly: 'specific workbook' maps to workbook_id, and 'filtering by version tag' maps to version_tag_name, including the optionality. But it does not specify value formats or relationships, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'AI agents defined in a specific workbook', which distinguishes it from the sibling sigma_list_org_workbook_agents that operates at the org level. The optional version tag filter is also stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 'in a specific workbook' clearly signals the tool is scoped to one workbook, distinguishing it from org-wide listings like sigma_list_org_workbook_agents. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on inference.

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