excel_list_workbooks

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 indicates a read-only listing operation. However, it does not clarify what happens if no workbooks are open (empty list vs. error) or that Excel must be open, which are relevant behavioral details.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and output. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the listing action and the data returned. However, it lacks error handling details (e.g., if Excel is not running) which would be beneficial for completeness.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description adds value by specifying the output fields (name, path, sheet count). This provides meaning beyond the empty input schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that expectation.

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 'List' and resource 'workbooks', clearly stating that it lists open workbooks and shows name, path, and sheet count. This differentiates it from sibling tools like excel_get_sheet_names (lists sheets) and excel_open_workbook (opens a workbook).

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 implies usage when the agent needs to know which workbooks are currently open in Excel. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., Excel must be running).

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