vtable_cell_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that it uses VTable internal APIs, prefers getCellAddrByFieldRecord, falls back for old-version instances, and does not scan the DOM or guess coordinates. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what errors may occur, but the disclosed constraints are meaningful.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, implementation details follow, and the final sentence clarifies a key limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, implementation strategy, version fallback, and the no-DOM-scan constraint. It could improve by naming when to choose this over sibling tools like vtable_cell_info or vtable_read_cells, but it is otherwise sufficiently complete for a moderately complex tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies field as a 'business field' and record_index as a 'record index', but it does not explain when record_index is an integer versus an array, what field format is expected, or how multiple indices are handled. This is minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: '将业务字段和记录索引解析为单元格地址' (resolve business field and record index into cell address). It also distinguishes itself from DOM-scanning UI tools by stating '不会扫描 DOM 或猜测坐标', making its role clear relative to sibling tools.

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 implies usage context—when you need an exact cell address from a field and record index—but it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool. The internal API preference and fallback logic describe implementation behavior, not user-facing selection criteria.

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