get_workbook_info

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations, the description doesn't explicitly state that no modifications are made or discuss file access permissions. It adds value by listing the metadata returned, but does not fully disclose behavioral traits.

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 highly concise: a single sentence states the purpose, followed by a brief Args section for the only parameter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the metadata scope, and the path semantics. It provides sufficient context for an agent to know when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema only provides the parameter name 'path', type (string/null), and a default. The description compensates fully by explaining that path can be an .xlsx path or preloaded file name and when to omit it, significantly adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workbook-level metadata'), and enumerates concrete items (sheets, dimensions, active sheet, defined names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_sheet or list_sheets.

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 implies usage for retrieving workbook metadata but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The note about omitting the path when only one file is configured gives some situational guidance, but no direct comparison to related tools.

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