xlsx_styles

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds significant behavioral detail: default mode is a per-sheet rollup with counts, detailed mode is opt-in and capped at 1000 cells. It explains the value of number formats for interpreting date serials and other formatted numbers. No contradictions with 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 well-structured with three paragraphs: purpose and modes, use cases, usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some sentences are redundant (e.g., restating the value of number formats), but overall efficient.

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 has 2 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: two modes, cap, use cases, and differentiation from siblings. It lacks explicit description of the return value format, but the mode descriptions provide enough for an agent to understand output shape.

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 'detailed' and 'limit' parameters by describing default vs detailed modes and the 1000-cell cap. However, it does not explicitly describe 'file_b64' or the 'options' structure, leaving some ambiguity. Overall, it adds meaningful semantics.

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 surfaces cell formatting (number formats, fonts, fills, alignment) to reveal how a cell looks, distinguishing it from raw values. It specifies that no other tool provides this fidelity and contrasts with xlsx_read, which only includes basic numFmt hints.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections provide clear guidance on when to use this tool (interpreting raw numbers, auditing dashboards, fingerprinting templates) and when to use alternatives (xlsx_read for data only). Also mentions the free tier cap.

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