sigma_list_workbook_embeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. The description does not add any extra behavioral context such as pagination, filtering, or result details, but for a simple list operation the provided annotations and description are consistent and adequate.

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 short declarative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key verb and object, making it an efficiently structured definition.

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 low-complexity list tool with one required parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the core function. It is slightly thin on when to use the tool relative to siblings, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 a single required parameter, workbook_id, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description says 'for a workbook,' which weakly implies the parameter's role, but does not explain how to obtain or format the ID. Since the parameter is self-explanatory, the description is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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') and a clear object ('embed configurations for a workbook'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create tool (sigma_create_workbook_embed) and other list tools by identifying the exact resource type.

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: when you need embed configurations for a specific workbook. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like sigma_create_workbook_embed or sigma_list_workbooks, nor does it provide any exclusions or additional usage context.

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