list_worksheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists worksheet names, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, what format the output is in, if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage context, which could be important for an agent to operate correctly in a workflow with many sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, where the description adds value by clarifying the action without redundancy.

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 action ('List') and resource ('worksheet names in the current workbook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_dashboards' or 'list_fields', which would require mentioning it's specifically for worksheets within a workbook context.

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 minimal usage guidance by implying it's for listing worksheets in a workbook, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_dashboards' for dashboards) or any prerequisites like needing an open workbook. No explicit when/when-not instructions are included.

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