sigma_list_workbook_columns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('formulas and types') and the execution scope ('across all elements'), which goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and immediately specifies the resource and scope, and every phrase ('including formulas and types') adds meaningful information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are inherently documented. The description covers the scope and key return content, and annotations handle the read-only behavior. The only minor gap is lack of mention of permissions or pagination, but for a straightforward list operation this is not critical.

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 single parameter workbook_id is self-explanatory by name, and the description implies it identifies the target workbook. However, the schema has zero description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The name carries the meaning, but with low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 with a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('columns across all elements in a workbook'), and adds distinctive detail ('including formulas and types'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like sigma_get_element_columns (which targets a single element) and sigma_list_workbook_elements (which lists elements, not columns).

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 all elements' provides clear context that this is a comprehensive, workbook-wide listing, implying it is appropriate when you need all columns rather than a single element's columns. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of an explicit exclusion.

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