xlsx_external_links

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, etc.), the description reveals it reads xl/externalLinks/*.xml directly, warns about absolute paths/network shares, and mentions the free tier cap (10k/mo). No contradictions 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 separate paragraphs for purpose, comparison, USE WHEN, and DO NOT USE WHEN. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description specifies exactly what is returned per link (target path, classification, sheets, cached values, named ranges) and contextual warnings. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter `file_b64` is not explicitly described, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, its purpose is implied by the tool name and description, so it is adequate but not enhanced.

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 it lists external workbook references, provides specific examples like `=[Budget.xlsx]Sheet1!A1`, and contrasts with sibling tools by noting that pandas, openpyxl, and ExcelJS cannot do this consistently. This distinguishes it effectively from the many sibling xlsx 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 explicitly states USE WHEN scenarios (e.g., sending a workbook, auditing leaked file paths, dependency analysis) and DO NOT USE WHEN (just reading values, directing to xlsx_read). This provides clear decision criteria.

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