diagnose_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: read-only operation, hazards never block reads, refusal behavior for mutating tools unless routed through Excel or allow_loss:true, and an honest limitation about the extLst top-level walk. This is exemplary disclosure.

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 long but every sentence carries meaningful operational guidance; it front-loads the verdict and then structures the decision flow, coverage details, and limitations. The verbosity is justified by the complexity of the scan behavior.

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?

It covers what the scan reports, the decision rules for mutating tools, the allow_loss escape hatch, coverage of x14 conditional formats, and the extLst limitation. With an output schema already present to document return values, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema has a single required `path` string with zero description coverage, and the description never explains path format, what the workbook path refers to, or any constraints. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation as required.

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 states a clear purpose: a round-trip hazard scan that reports which fragile workbook parts exist, whether an openpyxl edit would drop them, and a routing recommendation. It positions the tool as the safety check before mutation, which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that mutate or read data.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to run this check before mutating a workbook and explains what clean versus would-lose verdicts mean for whether mutating tools will refuse. It does not name alternative diagnostics like validate, but the timing and decision logic are strong.

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