sigma_list_workbook_bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the semantic detail that bookmarks are saved filter states, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or permission needs. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. The parenthetical adds meaningful clarification without redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the purpose and scope; the output schema covers return values, so no major contextual gaps remain.

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% for the single required workbook_id parameter. The description does not explicitly explain that workbook_id identifies the target workbook or describe its expected format, so it fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter documentation.

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') with a clear resource ('bookmarks') and adds a parenthetical clarifying they are 'saved filter states.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_add_workbook_bookmark and other workbook list operations.

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 usage by stating what the tool does and scoping it to 'a workbook,' but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. It is not misleading, but it leaves the agent to infer when this listing is appropriate.

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