sigma_list_workbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a behavioral hint about summary_only producing a 'concise token-efficient response', implying the full response could be verbose. However, it doesn't disclose return format or pagination behavior, which would add more value.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality and a key usage tip. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the main purpose and gives a token-saving tip, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention the limit parameter or distinguish from the very similar sigma_list_all_workbooks, leaving a small gap.

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 both parameters. The description explains summary_only ('concise token-efficient response') but provides no meaning for the 'limit' parameter. With only one of two parameters explained, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 resource ('workbooks') with clear scope ('in the organization'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sigma_list_workbooks_shared_with_member, though it shares similarity with sigma_list_all_workbooks. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 ('List all workbooks') and provides a practical tip for the summary_only parameter, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sigma_list_all_workbooks. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so guidance is limited.

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