xlsx_stamp

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

Description discloses the cryptographic stamping, base64 return, and checks array. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. Minor mismatch: mentions 'out_path' as a parameter but it's absent from the schema. Overall, good behavioral disclosure 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and well-organized (concept, return, parameters, usage). It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Efficient 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 complexity (nested objects, 5 params, no output schema), the description explains the stamp concept and return format but misses details on exclude_sheets, file_b64, workbook_handle, and generated_by. No output schema means return value description ('_meta.file_b64') is insufficient. Partially complete.

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 explains 'checks' well (list of named tests with status) but ignores other parameters: exclude_sheets, file_b64, generated_by, workbook_handle. Also mentions 'out_path' which isn't in schema. Incomplete guidance for most parameters.

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 signs a .xlsx file with a cryptographic integrity stamp, distinguishing it from file-sharing tools like xlsx_post_slack. The verb 'Sign' and resource 'LOCAL .xlsx file' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided with 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections, including concrete alternatives (xlsx_post_slack / xlsx_post_teams) and a reference to the verification counterpart xlsx_verify_stamp.

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