excel_read_worksheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Read data' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'data' means (values, formulas, formatting?), whether authentication is needed, if there are rate limits, what happens if the worksheet doesn't exist, or what format the returned data takes. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete phrase.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'data' means in the return, how much data is returned, whether there are pagination limits, what happens with errors, or any behavioral constraints. The context demands more complete guidance than provided.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'worksheetName' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'specific worksheet' which hints at the parameter's purpose, but doesn't clarify whether this is a worksheet name, index, or identifier, or what happens with invalid names. This minimal compensation is insufficient given the complete schema coverage gap.

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 action ('Read data') and target resource ('from a specific worksheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'excel_write_worksheet' or 'excel_get_formulas', which limits its effectiveness in a crowded toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the Excel domain (like 'excel_write_worksheet', 'excel_get_formulas', 'excel_audit_calculations'), there's no indication of when reading worksheet data is appropriate versus other data retrieval or manipulation operations.

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