generate_fsharp_script

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that the tool reads the input rather than mutating it, that the output is a self-contained script, and that the script should be executed via dotnet fsi. It does not mention edge cases like unsupported workbook features, but the core non-mutating and code-generation behavior is clear.

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 two focused sentences: the first states behavior and output, the second adds use cases. The parenthetical library reference and dotnet fsi command are relevant, and there is no padding or repeated schema 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 two-parameter read-and-generate tool with no output schema, the description is near-complete: it explains the input, the generated output, the execution mechanism, and why one would prefer this over create_workbook. It could be strengthened by explicitly stating that the tool does not execute the script or write files itself, though 'returns a script' already conveys this reasonably well.

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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema (100% schema description coverage), and the description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema says. The phrase 'rebuilds an equivalent file' corroborates the outputFileName role but does not provide extra detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is unambiguous: it reads an existing Excel workbook and produces a self-contained F# script that can rebuild an equivalent file. It clearly differs from the sibling JSON/XML/C# generators and from create_workbook, which builds a workbook directly rather than generating source code.

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 concrete usage contexts: explaining how a file is structured, or starting from a point that exposes library features beyond create_workbook. It explicitly names create_workbook as an alternative, though it does not enumerate exclusions for other siblings like generate_csharp_script or read_workbook.

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