get_cell

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the data fields returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior (e.g., missing file or invalid cell reference). The verb 'get' implies no mutation, but more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 succinct and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clean Args list with explanations. There is no filler or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple get tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameter semantics, and expected return fields. It does not address alternative tool selection or edge-case behavior, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to detail return values, though the description still lists them.

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 description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters in the Args section, including path semantics (preloaded file or default), sheet name, and cell reference with an example. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full detail for a single cell' and enumerates the specific aspects (value, formula, number format, font, fill, merge, comment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_sheet or write_cells, which handle ranges or modifications.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed cell information, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., read_sheet for ranges) or provide exclusions. The context of 'single cell' is clear, but no specific guidance is offered.

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