get_cell_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states that the tool inspects formatting, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. The list of formatting aspects gives good coverage of what behavior to expect, though it omits details like response structure or limitations (e.g., handling of merged cells).

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It lists the formatting aspects concisely, with no redundant words. The structure is front-loaded with the key action ('Inspect a cell's formatting').

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context. It lists what formatting aspects are inspected but does not describe the return format, potential edge cases (e.g., empty cells, merged cells), or whether all aspects are returned in a single call. For a read tool, this leaves some ambiguity about the response structure.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters 'cell' or 'session_id'. It does not specify the expected format for 'cell' (e.g., A1 notation) or the purpose of 'session_id'. The name and context imply basic meaning, but the description fails to add value 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 action ('Inspect a cell's formatting') and lists specific formatting aspects (font, fill, alignment, borders, number format, dimensions, merge status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that write or modify formatting, making purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for inspecting formatting but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like read_cell (which retrieves values) or set_* tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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