sheets_get_sheet_formatting

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns a 2D array matching the range, and explains the useEffectiveFormat parameter for resolved/inherited styles. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior for empty cells, but the core functionality is well-covered.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, return format, and a key parameter nuance. No redundancy; every word adds value. Front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and the resource 'cell formatting'.

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, the description explains the return structure (2D array). It covers the main behavior and the key parameter. Minor gaps: no mention of handling single cells or performance considerations, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage so baseline is 3. The description adds value: it specifies that range must include sheet name (e.g., 'Sheet1!A1:Z85') and explains the useEffectiveFormat semantics (resolved/inherited vs user-entered). This goes beyond the schema 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 reads cell formatting with a comprehensive list of formatting properties (background, text color, font, alignment, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools: others update formatting (sheets_format_cells) or read values (sheets_get_values), while this reads formatting only.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for reading formatting, it lacks direct comparisons or exclusions (e.g., 'Use this when you need formatting, not cell values. For values, use sheets_get_values.'). The context is implied but not explicit.

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