Workbook info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output-content context (used ranges, tables, charts, error formulas), but says nothing about cost, permissions, or failure modes on a bad path.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the most concrete inventory items are front-loaded. It is slightly list-heavy and would benefit from a leading verb, but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does a reasonable job enumerating what comes back. However, it omits how the workbook is identified (input_path semantics), the preview row cap, and any error behavior, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It partially compensates by implying preview rows ('the first rows of each sheet'), but never ties this to the preview_rows parameter, its default of 10, or its max of 100, and input_path is entirely unexplained.

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 is a noun-phrase inventory of returned contents rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never states plainly that this tool retrieves workbook metadata/contents. It conveys the resource scope well enough, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling read_workbook, which an agent must guess between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., the workbook must be open or on disk), and no mention of read_workbook or any other sibling as an alternative. The agent is left to infer the choice entirely.

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