get_workbooks_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly explains pagination behavior via start/count with a max of 50, and the visibility filter to include or exclude hidden workbooks. It also specifies the kind of metadata returned, giving a solid picture of what the tool does without overpromising.

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 long, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second lists returned metadata, and the third covers pagination and visibility. 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, return fields, pagination constraints, and visibility filtering. It does not mention potential default ordering or rate limits, but these are not critical for this tool's usage. The overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, the actual schema contains descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the pagination semantics (start/count with max 50) and the meaning of the visibility filter (include/exclude hidden workbooks). This compensates for any perceived gap and provides clear parameter usage context.

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 opens with 'Retrieves a paginated list of workbooks for a Tableau Public user,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_workbook_details or get_workbook_contents by focusing on the complete portfolio and listing metadata including titles, view counts, publication dates, thumbnails, sheet counts, and direct URLs.

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 states 'Useful for browsing a user's complete workbook portfolio,' giving a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for list-level queries rather than details or contents of a single workbook.

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