Get Cell Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: empty cell_ids returns all cells, and unresolvable ids surface in missing_cell_ids instead of being silently dropped. The rationale (write tools refuse absent ids, so silence would hide the mistake) adds real context. It omits cost/pagination implications of fetching all cells, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by scope, then the edge-case semantics. The final explanatory clause is slightly long but earns its place by justifying the missing_cell_ids design. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return shapes, and it covers the default/all-cells case plus the error-reporting edge case. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the closely related read siblings, which a three-parameter read tool in this family would benefit from.

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 100% and the schema already documents cell_ids semantics, the accepted string/array/null shapes, server_url, and session_id. The description restates the empty-equals-all behavior without adding new format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first line gives a specific verb and resource ("Get full runtime data for one or more cells") and enumerates what 'runtime data' means (source code, errors, variables). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that overlap heavily with that content — get_errors, get_variables, and get_cell_outputs are adjacent tools and the description never says how this differs from them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the empty-cell_ids behavior tells the agent this can be used as a bulk fetch, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_cell_map, get_errors, or get_variables. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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