audit_workbook_complexity

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

Description explains the tool downloads, parses, compares metrics, and sets findings and compliant flag. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it covers main behavior but omits potential impacts like download size or authentication needs.

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?

Description is two sentences, with the first sentence stating purpose and the second providing details. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the second sentence is somewhat long. Overall well-structured without unnecessary content.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema (presumably documenting results), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the process (download, parse, compare), the metrics involved, and the outputs (findings, compliant flag). No critical information is missing.

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?

Input schema has only one parameter with a description ('LUID'). Description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 audits workbook complexity indicators against best practices, distinguishing it from inspect_workbook_structure by adding threshold comparison. Action verb 'audita' (audits) and specific resource (complexity indicators) make purpose explicit.

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 use for compliance checking and mentions similarity to inspect_workbook_structure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Guidance is minimal.

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