xlsx_diff

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, and the description adds detail about byte-deterministic output and diff_hash for caching. No contradictions with annotations. The description provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it omits parameter details and could be restructured to include them without adding much length. It is not overly long, but missing important information prevents a higher score.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the return format (e.g., what diff_hash is, how to interpret the diff) and clarify the base64 parameter mapping. The current description is insufficient for an agent to correctly use and interpret results.

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 description mentions 'local .xlsx files' but the schema expects base64 strings (file_a_b64), creating a mismatch. The optional sheet parameter in options is not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter meaning, but it fails to do so, likely confusing an agent.

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 computes a semantic diff between two local .xlsx files, listing specific outputs (cell-level deltas, formula changes, added/removed rows). This distinguishes it from siblings like xlsx_read or xlsx_validate.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections provide clear guidance, specifying that the tool is for local file paths and not for uploads/attachments. This helps the agent select the tool appropriately.

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