inspect_schedule_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool inspects rather than modifies, explicitly says it does not execute formulas, and lists the structural attributes it infers. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a read-only inspection tool, though it does not mention error cases or path resolution details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, target, and the specific set of inferred properties efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the input constraints and what the inspection covers. It could be slightly more complete by stating what the return value looks like, but the enumerated inference list gives adequate context.

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 filePath with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that the path must reference an existing XLSX schedule file inside the workspace. For a single-parameter tool, this is meaningful added semantics beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('existing XLSX schedule file inside the workspace'), and it enumerates what is inferred: worksheet, used range, day columns, time column, merges, widths, and heights. The phrase 'without executing formulas' also helps distinguish it from import or creation tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is for inspecting an existing schedule file in a read-only manner, which gives contextual usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus import_schedule_file or create_schedule_template.

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