List Conditional Formatting Rules

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact return shape and an important behavioral limitation: cell-value rules only report formulas, while color scales report just the type. This helps the agent set expectations correctly and avoids assuming all rule types expose the same data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and well-structured with a purpose sentence, an Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes value, and the main action is front-loaded before parameter details.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns, including per-rule indices, COM codes, formulas, and rule-type limitations. All optional parameters and defaults are covered, so an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: workbook and sheet accept None for active context, and range_address is described as an A1-style address with an example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 and resource: 'List conditional formatting rules applied to a range.' The Returns section further clarifies it is a read-only inspection tool for existing rules, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_conditional_format_rule and clear_conditional_format_rules.

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: it lists rules, contrasting with add/clear conditional formatting siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as 'use this to inspect rules before modifying them.' It provides clear context but no exclusions or direct alternative guidance.

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