Workbooks List Workbooks

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the marginal value is the pagination behavior: the tool silently follows every page, so nextPage is always null and hasMore false, and limit is a page size rather than a result cap. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong. It loses a point because part of the sentence restates return keys that the output schema already documents.

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 core action and the summary_only tip are front-loaded in one sentence, and the pagination detail follows. The pagination sentence is dense and parenthetical-heavy but every clause conveys a distinct fact; only the enumeration of return keys is arguably wasted given the output schema.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the main risk area (pagination and limit semantics). What is missing is disambiguation from sibling list tools and any note on ordering or result scope, which for a crowded list-family is a real gap but a modest one.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It correctly clarifies limit as page size (not total count), which is the key ambiguity, and explains summary_only's purpose. However, it never says what fields summary_only drops or what default paging behavior occurs, so both parameters remain only partially specified.

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 with scope: 'List all workbooks in the organization.' That is unambiguous on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling workbooks_list_all_workbooks or workbooks_list_workbooks_shared_with_member, which an agent must guess between.

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 only usage guidance is 'Pass summary_only=True for concise token-efficient response', which gives a real selection heuristic for that parameter. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over the sibling list tools (all workbooks, shared-with-member, tag-scoped), so usage is implied rather than directed.

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