get_workbook_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'gets' info, but does not disclose if it's read-only, permissions required, or what happens if the file is locked or corrupted. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for info types), but efficient overall.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, but it only mentions 'sheets, size, etc.' which is vague. Given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, it is adequate but lacks specificity.

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% with file_path already described. The description adds 'sheets, size, etc.' providing some context on what info is retrieved, but does not add detail beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'information about an Excel workbook', and mentions specific attributes (sheets, size) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sheets or read_cell. However, 'etc.' is vague and could be more precise.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no comparison to siblings like list_sheets (which only lists sheet names) or read_range (which reads cell data). The description implies it's for general info, but lacks context for decision-making.

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