list_excel_sheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist or isn't an Excel file), performance characteristics, or output format details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values, error conditions, and behavioral context that would be helpful given the absence of annotations. The description meets minimum requirements but could be more complete.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'path' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid paths or format requirements). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 all sheet names') and resource ('in an Excel file'), specifying supported formats (.xlsx or .xls). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_excel_sheet' by focusing on metadata listing rather than content reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_file_info' which might provide similar information.

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 usage for Excel files only, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_file_info' (which might list sheets) or 'list_directory' (which lists files, not sheets). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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