Explain a VisiMark document's structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is a structural summary and that omitting `sheet` yields the whole document, but says nothing about failure modes (missing file vs. malformed document) or the shape of the explanation. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the enumeration of what gets explained is placed before the scoping tip. Every clause carries information.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return content by listing the declared elements. Safety is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior, which is minor for a read-only inspection tool.

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%, so all three parameters (path, sheet, content) are already documented, including the path/content mutual exclusion. The description's only added semantic is that `sheet` narrows the output scope, which is marginal beyond the schema's own wording. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("Describe") and resource ("what a document declares") and enumerates the concrete categories returned: sheets, input columns, computed rules, anchored scalars, derived precision, imports. This is far more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from siblings like visimark_ref or visimark_eval, which likely also surface document information.

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?

Usage is only implied: inspecting a document's declared structure. The one directive offered ("Give `sheet` to narrow it") tells the agent how to scope output but not when this tool is preferable to visimark_ref, visimark_check, or visimark_eval. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is present.

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