Get Workbook Info

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already known, and the description adds behavioral nuance: the default resolution to the active workbook of the first Excel instance and the inclusion of visibility in the returned data. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 short and organized with Args and Returns sections. The return list partially repeats the opening sentence, but the added visibility detail and default behavior make the structure worthwhile.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how to specify the workbook, and what happens when workbook is omitted. Nothing else is required to call it correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates for the single workbook parameter by stating it is a name or path and explaining the None default. This is precisely the information an agent needs beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair and enumerates the exact payload: worksheet names, active sheet, and each sheet's used range. This makes its scope concrete and separates it from sibling tools like list_worksheets, which would only cover the first item.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_worksheets, get_table_info, or get_range_values. It explains the workbook argument but not the selection context or exclusions.

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