List formulas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like 'cached values' (indicating it reads cached results rather than recalculating) and the filtering behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention potential side effects, or discuss rate limits or performance considerations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Formulas with addresses and cached values') and then immediately explain the filtering options with concrete examples. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what is returned (formulas with addresses and cached values) and mentions the key filtering capabilities. It lacks details about the exact return structure or pagination, but for a moderately simple list tool with thorough schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of filtering with `contains` and/or `sheet` adds a small amount of practical context, but it largely repeats what the schema already dictates, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it lists formulas with their addresses and cached values. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like workbook_overview or trace_cell by focusing on formula listing and filtering.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool by mentioning filtering options (`contains` and `sheet`). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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