list_sheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the return format ('list of sheet name strings'), ordering behavior ('in workbook order'), and special CSV handling. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions, or performance limits, but covers core behavior adequately.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste: first states core purpose, second specifies return format, third covers edge case. Each sentence adds essential information, and the description is appropriately brief for a simple list operation.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter (100% schema coverage) and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and special CSV behavior. No annotations exist to supplement, but the description stands adequately on its own.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'file' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., file format expectations or path examples), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('List all sheet names'), resource ('in a workbook'), and scope ('in workbook order'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workbooks' (which lists files) and 'read_sheet' (which reads content). The CSV behavior note further clarifies scope.

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 description implies usage context by specifying it returns sheet names 'in a workbook' and handles CSV files specially. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_workbooks' (for files) or 'describe_table' (for metadata), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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