悬停单元格读取颜色

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

The description discloses key behavioral details: it uses a 'real mouse' hover and 'auto-scrolls' into view. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the action mechanism. However, it does not mention potential side effects like moving the mouse pointer or triggering hover effects, though readOnlyHint covers the main safety aspect.

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 a single sentence but dense and free of fluff. It is well-structured and directly mentions the key facts. It could benefit from a bullet list for the output items, but overall it is concise and readable.

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?

The tool's purpose and behavior are described, but critical context is missing: coordinate system (0-based vs 1-based), expected return format, and behavior when the cell is not found. Since an output schema exists, the return format may be covered there, but the description alone leaves some gaps for a tool that requires precise cell coordinates.

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 schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain col, row, tab_id, or table_index. It mentions 'cell' and 'same-row neighbor' but never specifies coordinate systems, indexing, or the meaning of the optional parameters. Since the schema provides no help, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent with insufficient parameter guidance.

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 action: real mouse hover on a cell (with auto-scroll) to read hover-state color information. It lists specific outputs (background color, text color, interactive text status, row highlighting) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vtable_read_cells or vtable_cell_info by focusing on hover states.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly indicate when to use it over alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you need hover colors' or 'instead of vtable_cell_info'. The purpose is clear but the selection guidance is only implicit.

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