inspect_conditional_format_rules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the read-only nature, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds a behavioral guarantee about 'stable rule indexes', which is not conveyed by annotations. This is useful context for downstream operations that rely on rule identity. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral details like return format or how broken rules are represented.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and key qualifier efficiently, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.

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 has three parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining both parameter behavior and return expectations. It fails to explain the 'broken_only' parameter or what details are returned for each rule beyond the promise of stable indexes. Without this context, an agent cannot reliably predict the tool's full behavior or use it correctly in all scenarios.

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 zero descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not mention any parameters. The names 'filepath' and 'sheet_name' are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'broken_only' is not described at all. The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, forcing the agent to guess at parameter semantics.

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 verb 'inspect' and the resource 'worksheet conditional formatting rules', making the purpose immediately evident. The additional qualifier 'with stable rule indexes' distinguishes this tool from sibling inspection tools like inspect_data_validation_rules, which inspect different rule types.

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 the tool is for reading conditional formatting rules without modifying them, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces this. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as inspect_data_validation_rules or remove_conditional_format_rules. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided.

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