xlsx_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds value by stating it's a single round trip, outputs ranked findings, and should be called first. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured: begins with purpose, lists scan items, explains output format, then provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, description thoroughly explains what the report contains (ranked findings, quick_facts). Covers what is scanned and how output is organized. Complete for an audit tool.

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?

Only one parameter (file_b64) with no schema description. The description implies the file is local and base64-encoded by stating 'local .xlsx file', but does not explicitly state the parameter is base64 content. Partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states it generates a workbook health report for local .xlsx files, listing specific items scanned (macros, references, hidden sheets, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by branding as a 'ONE-CALL' health report and contrasting with focused tools like xlsx_macros and xlsx_read.

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 context for when to call this tool versus alternatives. It recommends using this before any other tool for triage and advises against it when already looking for specific issues or data values.

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