xlsx_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and other safety traits. The description adds beyond this by detailing internal behavior: mapping personId to display names via a specific XML file, folding reply chains into root comments, and mentioning the free-tier 10k/mo cap. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN) and front-loads the core purpose. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the technical details about OOXML zip are helpful but may be secondary). Overall, it earns its length.

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 complexity of handling two comment systems and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the scope, limitations (e.g., cannot add comments), and technical details (personId mapping, reply chains). Annotations cover safety, so the description focuses on behavioral and contextual aspects effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema lacks descriptions. The description does not explain the parameters (file_b64, options.limit, options.sheet) beyond their existence. It relies on context, but agents would benefit from explicit parameter guidance. This is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 specifies a precise verb ('list') and resource ('every cell comment in a workbook'), covering both legacy notes and threaded comments. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that no other tool (including pandas and openpyxl) can do this, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections. It lists specific scenarios (extracting reviewer feedback, auditing, building reports) and clearly states when to use alternatives (xlsx_read for values, notes that xlsx_write does not write comments). This gives agents strong guidance on tool selection.

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