get_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It states read-only behavior, works while the file is open in Excel, enforces a 1,000-cell ceiling, and explains the honest value-labeling semantics so formulas without cached values are not misrepresented as blank. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: the primary action, the contrast with read_range, parameter semantics, limits, labeling behavior, and runtime constraints. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

For a read tool with moderate complexity and no annotations, the description covers the key operational constraints: cell addressing, ceiling, value modes, honest labels, read-only safety, and Excel-open compatibility. The output schema exists, so return-value structure does not need to be described.

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 the cells parameter format (A1 strings or location objects, each resolving to one cell) and the values parameter options (cached, formula, or both). It does not explicitly describe path or sheet, but those are relatively self-explanatory from the schema names and sibling context.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (many individually addressed cells), and immediately differentiates itself from read_range as the scatter complement to its rectangular counterpart. The phrasing leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly names read_range as the rectangular alternative and implies this tool is for reading non-contiguous cells. It does not enumerate all other sibling tools, but the scatter-vs-rectangle contrast provides clear decision context for the primary alternative.

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