inspect_workbook_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: downloads the workbook artifact, parses XML locally, and reports issues without failing. It is transparent about the diagnostic nature and non-blocking behavior of issues. However, it could explicitly state that the operation is read-only and mention any potential impact (e.g., rate limits or permissions).

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add critical detail about diagnostic behavior and non-failure. Every sentence provides unique 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no complex return structure beyond what an output schema would cover), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what outputs to expect (list of components and issues). The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return values.

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 input schema has one required parameter ('workbook_id') with a description that already covers its type and role. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 inspects the internal structure of a published Tableau workbook, listing specific components (worksheets, dashboards, connections, fields, filters) and issues. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'audit_workbook_complexity' and 'get_datasource_dictionary' by focusing on structural inspection and diagnostic reporting.

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 a diagnostic use case by noting that 'issues' are returned without causing failure, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'audit_workbook_complexity' or 'get_datasource_dictionary'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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