Get composed ribbon structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (compact JSON tree) and the concept of being the ground truth, which is helpful. Yet it does not mention caching behavior (e.g., refresh parameter bypasses cache), potential errors, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 sentences: the first defines the output and contents, the second explains utility and filtering. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler, and the key details are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the output structure, intended use cases, and filtering options, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The schema provides detailed parameter semantics, including the experimental APPLICATION note. While no output schema exists, the description adequately characterizes the response shape; a minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of caching or error behavior, but this is not critical for a simple getter.

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 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The main description reinforces filtering by location and tab/group id, but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. Given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage, no further credit is warranted.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Return' and the resource 'fully composed ribbon', then details the contents (tabs, groups, controls) and the output format (compact JSON tree). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like ribbon_get_command, which targets a single command rather than the full structure.

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 the tool's utility as the ground truth for valid Location values, ids to hide, commands to reuse, and sequence placement, indicating it should be used before ribbon modifications. It also gives practical advice to filter by location and tab/group id to keep output small. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative getters like ribbon_get_diff or ribbon_get_command, so prohibitions are absent.

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