xlsx_named_ranges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so no safety concerns. Description adds context about why pandas collapses named ranges and what the tool returns (name, scope, kind, reference), enhancing the agent's understanding of behavior beyond 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?

Description is concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating purpose, a context note about pandas, and separate USE WHEN/DO NOT USE WHEN sections. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It could optionally mention if the list is sorted or any limitations, but overall it's sufficiently complete for the agent to understand its role.

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 has one required parameter 'file_b64' with no description in schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'LOCAL .xlsx workbook' but does not explain the parameter format (e.g., base64 encoding). With low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not, leaving the agent without clear parameter documentation.

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 the verb 'list' and resource 'defined names (named ranges)' in a LOCAL .xlsx workbook, listing the output fields (name, scope, kind, reference). It distinguishes from siblings like xlsx_read and xlsx_formulas by specifying that it surfaces information that pandas.read_excel collapses.

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 guidance. It recommends calling before xlsx_read to orient, and warns against use when workbook has no formulas or for upload/attached files. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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