Read Database Cells

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact – that rich-text titles/cells return both plain values and formatting-preserving deltas – but says nothing about volume, ordering, or missing-row behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the delta caveat follows. Nothing redundant or speculative is included.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema descriptions plus rich annotations, the description only needs to frame the operation, which it does. A note on how filters interact or on result size would close the last gap.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in-schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description does not mention the optional columns or rowBlockIds filters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read row titles and cell values from an AFFiNE database block. That is clearly distinct from the column-metadata sibling read_database_columns, though the description never names that sibling to reinforce the split.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource ('cell values'), with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. It does not tell the agent to prefer read_database_columns for schema and this tool for data, nor does it mention row/column filtering as the way to narrow scope.

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