design_sheet

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses that it creates an empty template (no formulas/values), explains the default output path, and notes that it will ask for clarification when the method is ambiguous. This directly addresses the most important behavioral trait (non-calculation) and file side effects, which is more than typical.

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 well structured: it leads with the main purpose, then explains parameters, and finally emphasizes the critical non-calculation behavior. It is longer than average but every sentence contributes essential information, especially the caveat about not inserting formulas. No redundant statements.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema parameter descriptions, the description covers the core purpose, gives parameter hints, and highlights the critical boundary (no calculations). However, it relies on a sibling reference for some parameters and does not explain domain at all. Given the output schema exists but is not described, the tool is reasonably complete but leaves gaps that the agent must infer or look up elsewhere.

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 compensate. It explains out_path (including default) and says member, shape, and method share semantics with design_flow, but it does not define domain. The reference to design_flow is indirect; an agent would need to inspect that tool's documentation to fully understand those parameters. This is partial coverage for a 5-parameter 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 states that the tool creates an empty section-review Excel template and returns a file path. It specifies the resource and verb and immediately distinguishes itself from calculation tools by stating it does not include formulas or values. Since it references design_flow for parameter semantics but does not explicitly name a differing sibling for the core purpose, it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 some usage guidance: it says if the design method is ambiguous, the tool will ask, and it clarifies that calculations are left to the designer, implying this tool is for template creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of other design_* tools, such as design_flow or design_template, beyond the implicit distinction that this produces a blank sheet.

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