get_twbx_workbook_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the output components and implies a read-only extraction, but does not explicitly state that the file is not modified, or disclose limitations like performance on large workbooks, output format, or error behavior. It adds value by listing contents but lacks deeper transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how to use it. There is no redundant or vague wording, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool deals with complex workbook architecture and has no output schema, so the description must convey what the return value contains. It does list the main categories (data sources, worksheets, dashboards, parameters), but it does not describe the return structure (e.g., JSON keys, nesting) or address edge cases like file-not-found or invalid .twb files. It provides a good high-level overview but lacks sufficient detail for full contextual completeness.

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 description references 'mainTwbPath from unpack_twbx output' for the twbFilePath parameter, but it does not mention includeFieldDetails or its effect on output detail. Given that schema description coverage is reported as 0% in the context, the description fails to compensate for parameter semantics, leaving the second parameter's purpose solely to the input schema.

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 ('Extracts') and resource ('complete workbook architecture') and enumerates the contents (data sources, worksheets, dashboards, parameters), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the overall structure rather than specific components like calculated fields or data profiles.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: 'Ideal for understanding what's in this workbook at a glance.' It also instructs to use it with the 'mainTwbPath from unpack_twbx output,' which is a valuable prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, stopping short of a 5.

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