get_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 4 KB cap, truncated/full_length markers, the fact that truncated values are not real content, the explicit warning never to write back a truncated value, and the errors-above-1 MB behavior for get_full_content. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, then layers critical caveats (no query data, truncation, write-back warning) in a logical order with imperative warnings. Length is justified by the risk of data corruption if truncated values are written back.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return fields, type semantics, truncation behavior, error behavior, and safety instructions. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on what buffer_id and cell_id are, but those are standard identifiers in this API context.

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 only 33%, with only get_full_content described. The description adds substantial meaning to get_full_content (verbatim value, cap, required before rewriting) and explains the cell type semantics (markdown vs SQL) which maps to the returned 'type' field. buffer_id and cell_id are self-evident from their names and context, so the description adequately compensates despite low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cell'), and enumerates the exact details returned: value, type, UI flags, chart config, last-run status, and trimmed error. It also clarifies the meaning of 'type' and explicitly excludes query result data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_query and list_cells.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool by stating what it never includes (query result data) and when to use get_full_content: true (before rewriting a truncated cell). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling.

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