List Module Worksheets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds workflow context beyond those annotations: correct results depend on a preceding call to openl_list_project_modules, and outputs are meant to feed table creation/copying operations. No contradiction exists between the 'List' verb and the read-only annotation.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence packs both the prerequisite call and the downstream usage into one efficient clause. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 2 required parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers the full usage arc: what it returns (worksheet names), how to prepare inputs (exact moduleName from a prior call), and what to do with results (destination sheet for create/copy operations). The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the description implies the return shape. Minor gaps remain around error behavior or handling of invalid module names, but these are not critical for a read-only listing 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 description coverage is 100%, with rich inline guidance: projectId must be used 'without modification or reformatting' and moduleName must be 'exactly as returned by openl_list_project_modules().' The description's mention of calling openl_list_project_modules first mostly reinforces what the schema already says, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'List worksheet names in a project module.' This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like openl_list_project_modules (lists modules, not sheets) and openl_list_tables (lists tables). The title 'List Module Worksheets' reinforces the same scope without ambiguity.

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 sequencing context: 'First call openl_list_project_modules to get the exact moduleName' states the precondition, and 'Use a returned sheet name as the destination sheet when creating or copying a table' states the downstream purpose. It does not name alternatives to avoid or explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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