preview_cells

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It states the tool is non-destructive and previews cells, but does not detail whether it requires file access or any side effects. Important behavioral notes like file_path vs base64 exclusivity are included, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 well-structured with a summary, numbered usage instructions, and an important note. It is concise but includes necessary details. Each sentence adds value, though a minor redundancy exists.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, input methods, and key usage notes. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it. The output format is not described, but for a preview tool this is acceptable.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant meaning: it explains the purpose of each parameter (e.g., file_path for local files) and provides important usage context (e.g., default limit, mutually exclusive parameters). This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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's purpose: preview translatable cells from an Excel file. It explains what it returns (first N cells with location and content) and when to use it (before full translation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like translate_excel.

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 usage instructions for different input types (local files, uploaded files, base64). It explains that the tool is useful for understanding what will be translated, giving clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions of when not to use it.

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