list_worksheets

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only (though implied), whether it might be expensive, or what error conditions (e.g., no workbook configured) may arise. Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for transparency but fails to provide meaningful detail.

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 10 words, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately lists the output fields, making it easy to scan.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the preconditions (e.g., the need for a configured workbook) or any potential side effects, leaving the agent without full context for safe usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by naming the specific fields returned (names, IDs, visibility states), which goes beyond the empty schema. This is helpful context for an agent using the tool.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the exact resources ('worksheet names, IDs, and visibility states') that the tool retrieves. Although there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the description is precise and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (none exist), nor are there prerequisites or recommendations about the configured workbook. The description implies a simple read operation but lacks context such as that the workbook must be loaded or configured first.

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