get_workbook_metadata

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('including sheets, ranges') but doesn't disclose whether include_ranges affects output or other behavioral traits. It is consistent with the annotation, so no contradiction.

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 fluff. It front-loads the main purpose. The use of 'etc.' is imprecise, but overall it is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 should clarify what metadata is returned. It lists 'sheets, ranges, etc.' but the 'etc.' is vague and doesn't mention other possible metadata like tables, named ranges, or workbook properties. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in return-value details.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain the parameters. The mention of 'ranges' hints at include_ranges, but filepath and include_ranges are not explicitly described. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata about workbook'), with examples ('sheets, ranges'). It clearly indicates a read-only overview task. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_all_sheets or list_named_ranges, and the trailing 'etc.' adds ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of sibling tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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