get-excel-range-format

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It goes beyond annotations by disclosing that font, fill, and borders are omitted by default and require the $expand parameter, and it explains why (to interpret cell meaning). This adds valuable behavioral detail not captured in structured metadata.

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 concise: two sentences plus a tip, with the main purpose front-loaded. The tip is actionable and relevant, containing zero fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only format getter with 9 parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances: nested properties, expansion, and the interpretative value of formatting. It does not detail return format or pagination, but given the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly. A complete picture would explicitly mention that formatting like fill/font colors may convey meaning, which it does, so it is reasonably 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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, the tool's description specifically instructs to add 'font, fill, and borders' to the $expand parameter, which is tool-specific and beyond the generic schema description of expand. It also lists concrete properties returned (alignment, wrapText, columnWidth, rowHeight), enriching parameter semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Returns a format object, encapsulating the range's font, fill, borders, alignment, and other properties.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like format-excel-range (which modifies) and get-excel-range (which presumably returns values), making the purpose unambiguous. The read-only declaration further clarifies its role.

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 provides clear context: it is for reading a range's format, and it gives practical guidance on expanding nested properties (font, fill, borders) and the semantic significance of cell styling. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get-excel-range, though the purpose is self-evident.

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