workiva_list_range_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List range links' and implies a read-only operation, but does not state whether results are paginated, require specific permissions, or have any side effects. This falls short of full disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args block is a bit redundant with the schema but is structured and easy to parse. No filler or rambling.

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 has an output schema, so return values are defined elsewhere. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must be a spreadsheet table), how range links are related to other link tools, or what the list will contain. This makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that content_id is the content/spreadsheet UUID and table_id is the table UUID, which adds meaning beyond the bare property names. However, it does not explain what a range link is or how the two IDs relate, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'List range links on a table' clearly states the operation (list), the resource (range links), and the scope (on a table). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_range_link or edit_range_link, which have different purposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention related tools such as get_range_link, get_range_link_destinations, or edit_range_link, nor does it provide context for choosing among them.

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