Trace a cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool computes (formula, cached value, precedents, dependents), how dependents are traced (directly or via ranges), and how unqualified addresses resolve. This goes beyond a basic statement, though it omits details about return format and max_dependents behavior, so it does not earn a 5.

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 consists of two tightly written sentences that are front-loaded with the core verb and scope. Every clause contributes important information, with no redundant words or filler, making it an exemplary concise tool description.

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?

For a per-cell audit tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential context: what it does, how to address cells, and what outputs to expect. It lacks a detailed return schema but enumerates the output categories adequately. The missing detail on max_dependents is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 67%, so the description must add meaning for undocumented aspects. It explains the cell address format in detail, including unqualified address resolution, which is not fully covered by the schema. It does not explain max_dependents, but that parameter has constraints and a default in the schema, and the missing info is not critical for usage.

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 audits a single cell, listing specific outputs (formula, cached value, precedents, dependents) and distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate at the workbook level. The wording 'Audit one cell' is a specific verb+resource that unambiguously defines the scope.

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 single-cell auditing and provides address format guidance, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like audit_workbook or list_formulas. There is no statement of when-not-to-use or alternative tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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