Read existing conditional formatting rules from an Excel sheet to see which cells change color, their conditions, and priority, avoiding rule breakage during edits.
读取工作表中已有的条件格式规则（写入 + 读取闭环）。
用途：接手一张别人的表时，先看清它埋了哪些自动规则（哪些格子会变色/变红）， 避免修改时破坏既有规则。
返回：规则条数与明细（作用区域 / 类型 / 运算符 / 阈值公式 / 填充色 / 优先级）， 按优先级排序。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sheet | No | ||
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it states the operation is read-only ('读取'), and discloses what is returned (rule count, range, type, operator, threshold formula, fill color, priority) and ordering. It does not discuss empty-result or error behavior, but for a read tool the key behavioral facts are present.
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 front-loaded with the core action, then gives a practical use case, then the return details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of 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?
The description compensates for the missing output schema by summarizing the returned fields and ordering. However, with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the lack of any guidance on the sheet parameter leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain file_path and sheet, but it adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not clarify that sheet is optional, what null means, or which worksheet is targeted when sheet is omitted.
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 a specific verb and resource: '读取工作表中已有的条件格式规则' (read existing conditional-format rules in the worksheet). It also positions the tool as the read half of a write/read loop with add_conditional_format, which clearly differentiates it from its sibling.
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 a concrete when-to-use scenario: '接手一张别人的表时' (when taking over someone else's sheet), in order to see existing automatic rules before modifying them. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.