sigma_list_workbook_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description simply says 'List', which aligns with those hints without adding new behavioral context. It does not disclose any rate limits, pagination behavior, or specific restrictions beyond the examples of element types, which are more about scope than behavior.

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 11 words, immediately front-loading the action and resource. Every word adds value, and it avoids any redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the primary purpose and gives examples of element types. However, the lack of usage guidance and parameter explanation prevents a perfect score, though the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter workbook_id, and the description does not compensate by explaining this parameter. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning or format details, failing to fulfill the requirement to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'List all elements (tables, charts, controls, etc.) in a workbook.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('elements') and scope ('in a workbook'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like sigma_list_workbook_page_elements or sigma_list_workbook_controls, relying on the 'etc.' to imply broad scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools. The usage is only implied by the action of listing elements, which is not enough given the many similar list tools available.

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