get_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads exactly one cell, performs a live Graph request, converts serial dates to ISO-8601 with a resolved_type check, and treats multi-cell addresses as errors. These are concrete behavioral details beyond a simple read hint.

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?

Three sentences earn their place: purpose, usage, then parameter and behavior details. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: exact behavior, usage context, parameter semantics, and an edge case. No critical gaps for an AI agent to select and invoke it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the address parameter (A1 notation or named range) and its constraints, though file_name, sheet, and folder_path rely on their naming for meaning. Adds clear value for the most complex parameter.

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 ('Reads'), a precise resource ('EXACTLY ONE cell'), and key qualifiers ('LIVE, by address'), distinguishing it from sibling range tools like filter_sheet. It emphasizes 'no ambiguity' to set expectations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the location is already known' for follow-up questions or scheduled routines, and names filter_sheet as the alternative for ranges. This provides a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to.

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