detect_circular_dependencies

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the detail about self-references, but it does not disclose behavior such as how sample_limit affects results, whether it scans the whole workbook, or what output format to expect. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without wasted words. It earns its place with the important 'including self-references' nuance.

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 is minimal and lacks information about return values, the effect of sample_limit, or any caveats. Given no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves substantial gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. filepath and sample_limit are completely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 detects circular workbook formula dependencies, including self-references. The verb 'detect' and resource are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like audit_workbook or analyze_range_impact.

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 circular dependency detection but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not state any context beyond the basic purpose.

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