list_pivot_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly specifies the output contract, including each returned field and the nullable source fields. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, but the listing behavior is well-specified.

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 main directive is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a scannable bullet list of output fields. There is no fluff; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 straightforward list operation with one obvious parameter, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the return fields and handles edge cases like undeterminable source data. The only missing detail is the semantics of file_path, which is largely self-explanatory.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain file_path beyond what the input schema already shows. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with a specific resource, 'every pivot table in the workbook,' and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_sheets and list_tables. The scope and resource are unambiguous.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need all pivot tables in a workbook. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer sibling tools such as list_sheets or list_tables.

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