List Charts

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

The description discloses the return behavior — JSON with each chart's name and position/size — which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also explains the workbook/sheet resolution behavior. No side effects are mentioned, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradiction detected.

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 concise and well-structured with three labeled sections: purpose, Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first line. There is no repetition, filler, or ambiguous wording.

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 simple listing tool, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: target workbook/sheet, optional parameter semantics, and the return shape. Since there is no output schema, the Returns line sufficiently communicates what the agent will receive. The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, so no additional behavioral caveats are needed.

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 properties have zero descriptions (0% schema description coverage), so the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It defines workbook as 'Workbook name or path' and sheet as 'Worksheet name', and clearly states that None means the active workbook or sheet. This fully compensates for 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 'List charts on a worksheet' — a specific verb ('list'), resource ('charts'), and scope ('worksheet'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_chart, delete_chart, set_chart_type, and list_worksheets based on the operation and resource. The Returns line further clarifies that the output is chart inventory data.

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 clearly establishes when the tool is appropriate: to list charts on a worksheet. It provides contextual guidance on targeting a specific workbook or sheet, including the None-means-active fallback. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a simple read-only listing tool, the intended usage is clear.

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