list_sheets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'Return' makes clear this is a read-only retrieval operation, and 'all sheets' discloses the scope of the result. Minor details such as hidden-sheet handling or ordering are omitted, but for a simple listing tool this is acceptable, especially since an output schema exists for the return shape.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The action and result are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter listing tool, the description plus the input schema and output schema provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly richer by mentioning hidden-sheet behavior or explicitly excluding tables/pivot tables, but these are minor for this level of complexity.

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%, so the description must help with parameter meaning. It does not explicitly discuss file_path, but 'in the workbook' implicitly identifies file_path as the workbook to inspect, and the parameter name itself is self-descriptive. No format or validation details are added, but the single required parameter is straightforward.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('the names of all sheets in the workbook'). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as list_tables and list_pivot_tables, which operate on different object types. There is no vagueness or tautology.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving sheet names, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose it over siblings like list_tables or list_pivot_tables. There are no direct exclusions or alternative routing hints; an agent must infer usage from the resource noun and the sibling tool names.

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