get_excel_sheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the mutual exclusivity of file_path and file_content_base64, and instructs the agent on how to handle each case. It does not cover error behaviors or file format limitations, but the core usage constraints are well communicated.

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 well-structured with clear headings (USAGE INSTRUCTIONS, IMPORTANT) and front-loaded with the purpose. While it is longer than necessary, each sentence adds meaningful guidance. A minor redundancy exists in the important note, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The description states the tool returns a list of sheet names, which matches its name. However, it does not detail the return format or mention what happens in error cases (e.g., invalid file). Given that no output schema exists, more detail on the output would improve 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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing concrete examples and step-by-step usage instructions for each parameter, as well as the important mutual exclusivity rule, which goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 starts with 'Get the list of sheet names in an Excel file,' which is a clear verb and resource. It also explains the tool's usefulness in the context of translation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like translate_excel that perform actual modifications.

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 provides detailed usage instructions for different scenarios (local files, uploaded files, base64 input) and includes a clear note to not show base64 content to the user. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to its siblings, so the guidance on when to use alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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