extract_from_excel_attachment

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

The description states the return structure (dictionary with sheet names, highlights, row counts) and implies a read-only extraction, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or how highlights are determined. With no annotations, more explicit behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 succinct, includes the essential purpose and parameter explanations, and contains no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The description gives the basic purpose, parameters, and return structure, which is sufficient for a simple tool. However, the vague 'highlights' concept and lack of examples or output format details may leave an agent uncertain about what to expect from the result.

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?

Both parameters are described: excel_path as the file path and limit_rows as the maximum rows to preview per sheet. This provides clear meaning beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 action ('Extract highlights') and resource ('Excel attachment'), and explicitly distinguishes from COBie workbooks, which helps differentiate from sibling tools. However, the term 'highlights' is vague and not further explained.

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 provides only a negative scope ('not a COBie workbook') and no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like extract_from_submittal or extract_from_text. An agent would need to infer usage context.

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