xlsx_read_handle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by noting the dependency on prior upload, handle expiration, and the return shape. No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose statement followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity, read-only nature, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, limitations (handle expiry), and error handling. No output schema needed as return shape is delegated to xlsx_read.

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 must compensate. It mentions the workbook_handle parameter implicitly and references 'same shape as xlsx_read' for options, but does not explicitly describe the options object's fields or enum values. Adequate but not thorough.

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's function: read a pre-uploaded workbook using a server-side cache handle without re-transferring bytes. It specifies the return shape matches xlsx_read and distinguishes from the sibling tool xlsx_read, which handles file_b64 transport.

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 context for when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., xlsx_read for local files). Also mentions handle expiration and error behavior.

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