get_workbook_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'visible' sheets are included, and describes the type of data returned (metadata, types, configurations, URLs). It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or errors, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the behavior is adequately transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each adds value: purpose, output specifics, required input, and use case. Front-loaded with the main action, no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and what input is needed. It could mention response format or error conditions, but these are not critical for invocation.

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% (the property lacks a standard description), but the tool description explicitly explains the single parameter 'workbookName' and provides a concrete example. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('complete structure of a Tableau Public workbook') and lists concrete outputs (sheets, dashboards, stories, URLs, metadata). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_workbook_details, which likely focuses on workbook-level 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?

It states a clear prerequisite (workbook name from URL) and a concrete use case ('exploring workbook structure and accessing individual visualizations'), providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or state when *not* to use it.

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