bw_list_afo_workbooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields, ordering ('Newest first'), the fact that no workbook is downloaded, and that file-share-only workbooks are excluded. It does not mention authorization requirements, but for a listing tool the behavioral profile is otherwise well covered.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and then layers in the relevant return fields, usage scenarios, ordering, and exclusion. Despite being dense, every clause adds information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly: it explains what is listed, what is returned, how results are ordered, and what is out of scope. An agent can select it and understand the output without needing more.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all seven parameters and sets the baseline at 3. The description adds situational meaning by tying used_object and role to specific where-used questions, and by explaining that role matching is about menu placement rather than authorization — this goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the Analysis for Office workbooks stored in BW.' It goes on to enumerate exactly what the listing returns, including text, document/file type, last change, data sources, planning functions, and role/folder placement. That scope makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like bw_get_afo_workbook or bw_save_afo_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?

It names concrete questions the tool answers — 'which workbooks use query X / planning function Y?' via used_object and 'which workbooks are in the menu of role Z?' via role — and explicitly says this works without downloading a workbook, which separates it from the get/save workbook siblings. It also gives a clear exclusion: workbooks kept only on a file share are not stored in BW and will not appear.

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