inspect_excel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states that the tool returns metadata but does not disclose whether it is read-only, error handling behavior, or file format compatibility. The minimal information is insufficient.

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 with three sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, earning its length.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately lists returned fields. However, it lacks information on error cases, file size constraints, or supported Excel versions. It is minimally complete for a simple inspection 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?

The only parameter, excel_base64, is described as 'Base64-encoded Excel file', which adds basic meaning beyond the schema's title. However, it lacks specifics like file format, size limits, or encoding requirements. With 0% schema coverage, it adds some value but not enough.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: inspecting an Excel workbook and returning metadata (sheet names, row/column counts, named ranges). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that convert or generate Excel files.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like excel_to_json or fill_excel_template. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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