workiva_export_spreadsheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Export a spreadsheet' without explaining what the output looks like, whether it returns a file or URL, any side effects, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and followed by a compact argument list. Every word serves a purpose, and the two-line format is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 (two parameters, one enum) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs. It doesn't add extra context like return value handling, but the output schema likely covers that. The absence of any cautionary notes is acceptable for a straightforward export operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly defining spreadsheet_id as 'The spreadsheet UUID' and format as 'xlsx, pdf, or csv'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and enum values. It doesn't mention default behavior (xlsx), but the schema already provides the default, so the description is adequate.

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 'Export a spreadsheet' clearly states the verb and resource, and the spreadsheet-specific target distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_export_document and workiva_export_file. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other spreadsheet operations such as workiva_get_spreadsheet, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply names the action and arguments, with no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Among many sibling export/import tools, this lack of direction makes it harder for an agent to select correctly.

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