word_read_table_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The verb 'Read' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, providing basic transparency. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, the format of paraIds, or whether the operation has any side effects (e.g., file locking). This is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence, immediately stating the action and output. Every word is informative, with no wasted content, and it is front-loaded for easy scanning.

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 read operation and full schema parameter descriptions, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It specifies the output (text and paraIds) but does not detail the exact return structure (e.g., object format) or handle edge cases like empty cells. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on return format would enhance completeness, but the current state is adequate for a simple read.

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 has 100% coverage, with each parameter (file_path, table_index, row, col) described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, instead focusing on the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 reads a single table cell and specifically identifies the output as 'text and paraIds'. The verb 'Read' is specific to this operation and the resource 'table cell' distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_read_table_structure, which likely reads the entire table.

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 its use for reading one cell's content, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over word_read_table_structure or other table-related read tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving room for ambiguity in selection.

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