list_named_ranges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds 'and their destinations,' clarifying the scope of the returned information. It does not mention edge cases like missing files or potential errors, but for a read-only enumeration this is acceptable. 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 unnecessary words. It is perfectly front-loaded, stating the verb and resource immediately.

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 tool is simple: one parameter, read-only, no output schema. The description and annotation together cover the essential behavior—listing named ranges and their destinations. Minor gaps like error behavior or prerequisites are not critical for this type of tool, and the description is complete enough for the agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the single 'filepath' parameter is self-explanatory from its name. The description's mention of 'workbook' implies filepath points to the workbook, adding some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, no explicit format, path constraints, or examples are provided.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('workbook defined names') while also specifying what is returned ('their destinations'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like inspect_named_range (which targets a specific named range) and create_named_range/delete_named_range (which modify).

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 the tool is used when you need to enumerate defined names in a workbook, but it does not explicitly contrast with inspect_named_range or list_tables, nor does it state when not to use it. For a straightforward listing tool, the context is decent but not explicit.

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