excel_get_formulas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts formulas, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output is in (e.g., list of formulas with cell references), or if there are limitations (e.g., only works on open workbooks). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (extracting formulas could involve nuanced behavior), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'extract' entails (e.g., output format, scope), prerequisites, or error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with Excel workbooks, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 1 parameter (worksheetName) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail. However, since there's only one parameter and its purpose is somewhat inferable from the tool name, it meets the baseline for minimal viability but adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Extract all formulas from a worksheet' clearly states the action (extract) and target resource (formulas from a worksheet). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like excel_read_worksheet (which reads data) or excel_validate_formulas (which validates formulas), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open workbook), exclusions (e.g., not for extracting values), or compare it to siblings like excel_read_worksheet or excel_validate_formulas. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context.

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