excel_validate_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 mentions validation but does not specify what happens on failure (e.g., errors, warnings), whether it modifies the workbook, or the output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it correctly implies a read-only operation without contradiction.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted language, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 complexity of a validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation results, error messages) or behavioral aspects like error handling. Without this information, the agent lacks critical context to use the tool effectively, making it incomplete for practical application.

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 50%, with the 'cells' parameter documented but 'worksheetName' lacking a description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as format examples for 'worksheetName' or validation rules. Since the schema covers half the parameters adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 function: 'Validate that cells contain formulas instead of hardcoded values.' It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('cells'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'excel_get_formulas' or 'excel_enforce_formula_rule,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., an open workbook), use cases (e.g., auditing spreadsheets), or comparisons to siblings like 'excel_audit_calculations.' This omission leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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