list_sheet_visuals

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds no further behavioral context — no pagination behavior, no note on what happens with an empty sheet or an invalid sheet_id, and no indication of result volume. An output schema exists, which covers returns, but the description itself contributes nothing beyond the safety profile already in annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy. 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 an output schema covering return values, full parameter documentation, and a readOnly annotation, the description needs only to convey scope and purpose — which it does. It falls short only in not distinguishing itself from the closely named sibling list_visuals.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify the relationship between analysis_id and sheet_id or how to obtain a sheet_id (e.g., via add_sheet or a sheet-listing call), adding no meaning 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('visuals'), and scope ('in a specific sheet of a QuickSight analysis') — the sheet-level scoping separates it from the analysis-wide sibling list_visuals. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 scope ('a specific sheet') implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative list_visuals, and no prerequisites or ordering hints. Usage is inferable but not taught.

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