read_cell

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it reads from 'currently activated notebook' and returns metadata, source, and outputs. Does not mention behavior on invalid index or missing notebook, but acceptable for a non-destructive read with annotation support.

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?

Single sentence covering purpose and return value. No filler or redundancy. Minor grammatical issue ('it's' should be 'its') but not affecting clarity.

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 simple read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains inputs and return fields. Missing mention of error conditions (e.g., out-of-range index) but sufficient for most use cases.

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 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add significant meaning beyond what schema provides. 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?

Description clearly states 'Read a specific cell' and lists returned data (metadata, source, outputs). Unambiguously distinguishes from siblings like read_notebook (which reads entire notebook) and mutation tools (e.g., delete_cell, edit_cell_source).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention that it requires an activated notebook (use_notebook) or that include_outputs can be toggled to reduce response size. Lacks all usage context.

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