workiva_list_spreadsheets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the Args explain filter and max_results, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or potential edge cases (e.g., invalid filters).

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 well-structured: a single, front-loaded sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by two brief parameter explanations. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema available. The description covers the tool's purpose and both parameters adequately. The output schema removes the need to describe return values in detail, making the description complete for its complexity level.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides meaningful semantics: filter is described as an OData filter with an example, and max_results is explained as the maximum results to return. This goes beyond the bare schema by clarifying the expected format and purpose of each parameter.

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 spreadsheets in the workspace' clearly specifies the action (list), the resource (spreadsheets), and the scope (workspace). This distinguishes it from siblings like workiva_list_sheets (sheets within a spreadsheet) and workiva_list_documents.

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 phrase 'in the workspace' provides clear context that this tool operates at the workspace level, implying when it should be used over similar list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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