vtable_get_cell_render_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('读取'), that detail='full' includes all nodes, and clarifies row_index semantics. However, it does not explain the behavior of the iframe_selector parameter or any potential side effects, though for a getter this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by essential parameter usage. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Overall, the description covers purpose, key parameters, and the intended assertion scenario. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The only notable omission is the iframe_selector semantics, which is a minor gap given its default value.

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 explains col_field (column index or field name/title), row_index (0-based data row), and detail (full includes all nodes). The iframe_selector parameter is left unexplained, but the other critical parameters are well documented.

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 opens with '读取某个单元格的场景图渲染详情' (read the scene graph rendering details of a cell), which is a specific verb+resource. It enumerates the exact data returned (visual text, colors, border, font size, nodes), making it clear and distinguishable from siblings like vtable_get_cell_text or vtable_get_cell_center.

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 final clause '用于断言单元格的展示样式（标签色、高亮等）' explicitly states the intended use case: asserting display styles. It gives clear context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, which is a minor gap.

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