xlsx_form_controls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the free tier limit (10k/mo cap) and explaining the internal implementation (reads xl/ctrlProps/ctrlProp*.xml directly). 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?

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose and capabilities, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers return content, constraints (free tier, cap), and usage contexts. It does not need to explain return values since no output schema exists, but the description details what is returned.

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?

Input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what file_b64 or options.sheet mean or how to use them. Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving a gap for agents.

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 what the tool does: 'list every form control ... in a workbook' with specific details (linked cell, current value, etc.). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that no other tool gives this in a single call and contrasts with ExcelJS, pandas, and openpyxl limitations.

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 provides 'USE WHEN' scenarios (documenting survey workbook, scoring rubric, auditing) and a 'DO NOT USE' scenario ('just reading values' with a specific alternative, xlsx_read). This gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings.

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