列出工作表

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently indicates the tool is read-only ('动手读/写之前可以先调它确认') and discloses it returns worksheet names and dimensions (行/列 counts). It doesn't mention file-format handling details or error behavior, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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, compact sentence that conveys both purpose and usage guidance without verbosity. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with practical usage advice. Slightly more could be trimmed, but it's efficient and wastes no words.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, this is complete. It specifies what it returns (sheet names, row/column counts), the use case (pre-flight check), and supports the correct schema. Mutation tools would need more disclosure, but for a listing operation the description is well-aligned with its complexity.

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 documents the single filePath parameter thoroughly (absolute path, format support, examples). The description adds marginal value by framing the parameter's purpose in context but doesn't go beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool's purpose: view which worksheets exist in an Excel file and their row/column counts. It uses a specific verb+resource (查看/match worksheets in a file), and distinguishes it from siblings like add_sheet, delete_sheet, rename_sheet by making clear this is a read-only inspection tool.

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 gives explicit usage context: call this tool before read/write operations to confirm sheet names. This is clear contextual guidance. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives (like read_range for reading data), the 'confirm before read/write' framing is a strong usage guideline that separates it from mutation siblings.

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