xlsx_formulas

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the important constraint that the workbook must be LOCAL and that the tool performs openpyxl-style read-only metadata extraction, which clarifies its behavior beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement, a distinction from sibling tool xlsx_read, and explicit usage guidelines in a compact format. No extraneous information.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description provides strong purpose and usage guidance, and hints at output structure. However, the lack of parameter explanations and output schema leaves some gaps, particularly for optimizing use of options like limit and sheet.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameters (file_b64, options, include_results, limit, sheet). It only describes the output format (cell coord, formula text, cached result), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameters effectively.

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 extracts every formula from a local .xlsx workbook, returning cell coordinates, formula text, and cached results. It distinguishes from xlsx_read, which returns evaluated values, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections, guiding the agent to use this tool for formula auditing and to avoid it for computed values (recommending xlsx_read instead). It also notes that pandas cannot extract formulas, reinforcing uniqueness.

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