read_calculated_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the tool reads from disk (not live), that uncalculated formula cells return null with a hint, and non-formula cells return stored values. It also mentions truncation at 10,000 cells with a next_range cursor, similar to read_range.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the prerequisite and behavior, and the third covers truncation. No wasted 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's complexity (formula vs non-formula, prerequisite, truncation) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers key edge cases and limitations. The mention of next_range cursor and hint behavior provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 input schema has two parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the format or constraints of range or session_id. While their names are self-explanatory, the lack of parameter documentation forces the agent to infer, which may lead to misuse.

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's purpose: it reads computed formula results (cached values) from disk. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_range by focusing on formula calculations and mentioning the prerequisite of recalculate_workbook.

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 advises to run recalculate_workbook first, which is explicit usage guidance. It implies that for live formula values, this tool is not appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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