excel_to_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes 'Import an Excel file as a table' but does not detail side effects (e.g., insertion position, impact on existing content), error conditions, or required permissions. The return type is only 'Success or error message,' lacking specifics.

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 concise with a single sentence for purpose, one for prerequisite, and bullet-like parameter explanations. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary text, earning 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description's return detail is adequate. However, it lacks context on insertion behavior (e.g., cursor position vs. end) and error handling for invalid files. The prerequisite is good, but the description is not exhaustive for a mutation 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 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: 'excel_path: Path to the Excel file (.xlsx)', 'sheet_name: Name of the sheet to import (default: active sheet)', 'max_rows: Maximum rows to import (default 100).' This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 'Import an Excel file as a table in the current document.' This provides a specific verb (Import) and resource (Excel file as a table), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like csv_to_table, read_excel, or add_table.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires openpyxl package' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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