Read an existing table’s style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that table-wide facts apply to the whole table while cell-specific attributes apply to the matched cell, and warns that Docs gives every cell 5pt padding by default. It also promises output shape compatibility with set_table_style, which is a useful behavioral guarantee.

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 longer than a minimal one, but every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second gives use cases, the third addresses output shape, the fourth clarifies scope, and the fifth covers a default caveat. It is front-loaded and not repetitive, though slightly verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so by listing the specific style attributes and clarifying which are table-wide vs cell-specific. It also handles an edge case (default padding on unstyled tables). For a read tool with nuanced output, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is high (83%), and the description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The cell parameter's role as a locator is already described in the schema ('text of any cell in the target table (locates the table)'), so the description's added value is mostly about output semantics rather than input parameter clarification.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read the style of the table containing the given cell text' and enumerates exactly what is read (widths, header rows, cell padding/background/borders). It explicitly positions itself as the read counterpart to set_table_style, distinguishing it from the sibling get_style which likely targets document/paragraph style.

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 explicit use cases: 'check a change took, preserve a table’s look while rewriting it, or copy one table’s layout onto another.' It also clarifies that it is the read counterpart to set_table_style, implying when to use the write tool instead.

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