xlsx_healer_simulate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it is read-only, produces no output workbook, and only simulates. No contradictions. Could detail decoding of file_b64, but sufficient overall.

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?

Three short paragraphs: purpose, when to use, when not to use. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words.

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, the description explains what the tool returns: which references resolve and which break with reasons. It covers behavior, inputs, and usage boundaries. Slightly vague on output format, but sufficient for agent decision.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly names 'accessible_paths' and explains its role. 'file_b64' is implied as the workbook. Minor improvement: clarify file_b64 is base64-encoded XLSX.

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 simulates recipient-side accessibility of external references, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings xlsx_healer_cure and xlsx_healer_intent by explicitly contrasting when to use vs when not.

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 provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections with concrete examples (e.g., before sharing to Slack) and direct alternatives (xlsx_healer_cure, xlsx_healer_intent). This is optimal guidance.

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