Parse XLSX File

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that the output consists of 'text chunks', which complements the annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits such as handling of multiple sheets, formula evaluation, or potential side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true) already signal uncertainty, but the description does not provide additional clarity, so it meets the baseline for annotation-backed definitions.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It has no filler or redundant details, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given there is no output schema and moderate complexity from chunking parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify how Excel files are converted (e.g., per-sheet, per-row), what 'text chunks' means in practice, or how chunk_size/chunk_overlap affect results. The tool's behavior remains underspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently without guesswork.

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%, with each parameter (e.g., file_content_base64, filename, chunk_size, chunk_overlap) already documented. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides, only implying that file content is parsed into chunks. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 identifies the tool's function: parsing an XLSX (Excel) file into text chunks. It uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('XLSX file'), and the output format ('text chunks') is explicitly stated. This distinguishes it from sibling parsing tools like lyzr_parse_pdf or lyzr_parse_csv by file type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative parsers. While the name and description imply it is for XLSX files, there is no mention of exclusions (e.g., 'for other formats, use lyzr_parse_csv') or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the file extension, which is weak guidance.

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