excel_inspect_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('already extracted') but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or what 'IR' means. The minimal disclosure leaves behavioral traits unclear.

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 extremely concise at 7 words. However, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. While no fluff exists, the sentence could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 (1 param, output schema exists) and sibling context, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'IR' refers to, how this metadata differs from other tools' output, or when this tool is appropriate. The output schema may help, but the description alone is insufficient.

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%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'doc_id' or explain its meaning, format, or role. Despite a simple parameter, the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 returns 'Excel-specific workbook metadata,' using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('workbook metadata'). It is not a tautology and somewhat distinguishes from siblings. However, the abbreviation 'IR' is ambiguous, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_inspect_capabilities or other excel inspection tools. The agent must infer from the name and description, but no exclusions or context are provided.

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