open_workbook

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 the tool opens a workbook for editing, implying mutation, but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, or error handling. The mention of 'in-place worksheet editing' adds some context, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse 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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in context for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. It mentions 'workbook (.twb or .twbx)' which hints at the file type for 'file_path,' but doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low coverage, this provides minimal compensation, aligning with the baseline.

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 ('Open an existing workbook') and the resource type ('.twb or .twbx files'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_workbook' or 'save_workbook', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 mentions 'for in-place worksheet editing,' which implies a context of editing, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workbook' or 'save_workbook,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of clear usage instructions limits its helpfulness.

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