Workbooks List Workbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the token-efficiency behavior of summary_only, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, default limiting (limit=200), or output shape.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the optional parameter tip follows — efficient and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But with 0% schema coverage on parameters and no differentiation from sibling list tools, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the limit parameter's semantics and pagination behavior.

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% and both parameters (limit, summary_only) are undocumented in the schema. The description explains summary_only's purpose ('concise token-efficient response') but says nothing about limit's role, default, or range, leaving one of two parameters semantically unclear.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: list workbooks in the organization. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely-named siblings like workbooks_list_all_workbooks, workbooks_list_workbooks_shared_with_member, or workbooks_list_templates, leaving the agent to guess scope differences.

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 hints at usage via the summary_only tip for token efficiency, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the many sibling list tools (list_all_workbooks, list_workbooks_shared_with_member). Usage is only implied.

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