List Named Ranges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description goes beyond by stating that hidden/internal names are omitted and that the return is JSON with each name and what it refers to. This adds behavioral detail about the output format and filtering behavior, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns), and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary details without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the parameter semantics, the return format, and important filtering behavior. There is no missing information an agent would need to call it correctly. The note about hidden names being omitted is critical and provided.

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 provides only the parameter name and default, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining 'workbook: Workbook name or path (None = active workbook)', giving both the meaning and the default behavior. This is exactly the kind of semantic clarification the description should provide.

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), the resource (named ranges), and the scope (user-defined, in a workbook). It explicitly distinguishes from other named-range tools by noting that hidden/internal names are omitted, which separates it from read_named_range or write_named_range. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives clear context about what the tool returns and what it excludes (hidden/internal names), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like read_named_range or create_named_range. The sibling tools are self-explanatory, but there is no direct 'use this for ... instead of ...' guidance. It provides a clear context without explicit exclusions for alternatives.

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