excel_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Reads data' with no mention of return format, read-only guarantees, error handling, or size limits. It leaves all behavioral traits unexplained.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simple purpose.

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 should clarify what 'reads data' returns (e.g., rows, cells, or raw values) and whether it operates on a currently open file. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about invocation expectations.

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 zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, though it could mention how the target file is selected (e.g., current context) to add value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('Excel spreadsheet (.xlsx file)'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like excel_create and excel_write_cell. It immediately identifies the tool's primary function and file format.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests reading rather than writing, there is no explicit contextual cue or exclusion (e.g., 'use excel_write_cell to modify'). The description offers no usage scenario.

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