get_all_cells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states what the tool returns (all non-EMPTY memory cells of the two types) without hiding any side effects. While it doesn't explicitly say it's read-only, the verb 'list' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, making this adequately transparent.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It specifies exactly what cells are returned (non-EMPTY, RESOURCE + OBSTACLE), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. No additional context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to describe. The description adds no param-specific information, but none is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly defines the resource as 'memory cells' with explicit filters (non-EMPTY, RESOURCE + OBSTACLE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resources and list_obstacles by covering both types in one call.

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 clearly states the scope (non-EMPTY cells of both RESOURCE and OBSTACLE types), implying it should be used when both types are needed together. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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