diff_workbooks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, so the description adds value by mentioning 'structural changes' and 'sampled cell-value changes', indicating the tool does not exhaustively report all changes. However, it does not disclose the return format or any additional behavioral details.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, but it only states high-level categories ('structural changes plus sampled cell-value changes'). It does not clarify the sample limit's effect, whether structural changes are exhaustive, or the response structure. More detail is needed for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. It mentions 'two workbook files', which maps to the required filepath parameters, and 'sampled' hints at sample_limit. However, it does not explain the meaning of sample_limit or include_cell_changes, leaving significant ambiguity.

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's function: 'Diff two workbook files and report structural changes plus sampled cell-value changes.' The verb 'diff' is specific, the resource is 'two workbook files', and the output is described. It distinguishes itself from siblings as the only diff tool.

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 clearly implies the intended use: comparing two versions of a workbook to identify changes. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to use this tool over other read/inspect tools.

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