read_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that charts are attached as images and that the tool reads cells, implying read-only behavior. However, it lacks explicit statements about non-destructiveness, permissions, or side effects, which would be expected for a read operation.

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 with two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the selection and view options. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers selection methods and view modes adequately. It could mention handling when both 'names' and 'indices' are provided or error cases, but it is sufficiently complete for a read operation in the context of sibling tools.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context for three of four parameters: 'names' (list of cell names), 'indices' (Python slice string), and 'view' (full/code/outputs). The required 'path' parameter is not explained in the description, but overall the description provides sufficient guidance beyond the 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 clearly states the tool reads cells with code and condensed outputs, including charts as images. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run, add_cell, and search_cells by its specific read-only purpose and selection methods.

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 explains how to select cells (by names, indices, or whole notebook) and the view parameter options, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like search_cells or summarize_cells. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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