Export workbook

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the payload is an embedded base64 resource and the tool exists for remote-server scenarios, which materially affects how an agent should handle the result.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the return-shape stated first and the selection condition second. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it does so precisely (the workbook file as an embedded base64 resource). For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema including file extensions and relative-path resolution. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return the workbook file itself as an embedded base64 resource'), which clearly separates it from siblings like describe_workbook, read_range, or list_workbooks that inspect rather than hand over the file. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use this to hand a workbook to the user when the server runs remotely' gives an explicit condition for selecting this tool. It stops short of naming the alternative or exclusion (e.g., that import_workbook is the inverse, or when a local-path workflow suffices).

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