sigma_list_workbooks_shared_with_member

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 behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the cross-referencing mechanism ('Cross-references member's file list against the full workbook catalog') and notes the output includes 'full workbook metadata'. This adds useful insight into how the tool operates.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds valuable context about the underlying logic. No filler or redundancy.

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 list operation with one parameter, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and mechanism. Annotations cover safety, and an output schema is present (implied), so the lack of return format details is not a gap. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter, member_id, and the description's phrasing 'accessible to a member' makes the parameter's purpose clear. The description does not add format details, but the parameter is self-explanatory and required, so the lack of explicit mention is acceptable.

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 lists workbooks accessible to a specific member, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workbooks accessible to a member'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbooks (all workbooks) and sigma_list_files by scoping to member accessibility and mentioning full metadata.

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 context: when you need to find all workbooks a member can access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing makes the specific use case clear. Sibling tools for listing workbooks exist, but the member-scoping is evident.

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