xlsx_eval

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

Describes the evaluation engine (HyperFormula), replacement of cached values, and intentional omission of I/O-related functions. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior; description adds context about local evaluation and limitations.

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 with a concise summary, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and limitations well. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return format or structure of the evaluated results, which could leave the agent unsure of what to expect.

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%, so description compensates partially by explaining the two modes (cells and formulas) and their purpose. However, the required file_b64 parameter is not described in detail (base64 format not mentioned), and options object only gets a brief mention. A more explicit description of each parameter's role and constraints would improve the score.

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?

Clearly states the tool evaluates Excel formulas against a local .xlsx file via HyperFormula. Distinguishes from sibling tools like xlsx_read (for no formulas) and describes two modes (formulas and cells).

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections, specifying conditions and alternatives. Mentions omission of risky functions like INDIRECT and HYPERLINK, guiding proper use.

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