list_worksheets

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

The description states it lists 'names', which is a non-destructive read operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates no side effects, though it doesn't mention what happens if the workbook is empty or if there are many worksheets.

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 sentence of 5 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema needed since output is presumably list of strings), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter semantics, but this is acceptable since there are none. Baseline 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 clearly states it lists worksheet names in the current workbook, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('worksheet names'). It is distinct from siblings like list_dashboards, list_fields, and add_worksheet, which have different purposes.

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 usage when you need to know worksheet names, and it is clearly a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like list_fields or list_dashboards, which might be relevant if the agent needs other information.

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