Validate WorkPaper Formula

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly saying 'checks syntax only' and 'not evaluate', which aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradictions, but could mention side effects or limitations more fully.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds essential clarification. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple tool with one well-described parameter, full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema (not shown but implied), the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow and its limitations.

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 already provides a detailed description for the single 'formula' parameter, including an example. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 validates formula syntax, using a specific verb 'validate' and resource 'WorkPaper parser'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_cell_contents' by explicitly noting it only checks syntax, not evaluates.

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 advises using this tool 'before writing it to a cell' and suggests 'set_cell_contents plus readback' for evaluation, providing clear context on when to use. It lacks explicit exclusions or a broader list of alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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