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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. It adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: 'Cheap and text-only,' the reverting-detection warning ('re-read before editing if so'), and the multi-window selection semantics. It also instructs to call view_annotation for pending annotations. No contradiction 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 long (~150 words) but every sentence carries weight: it covers when to call, what it returns, edge cases (multi-window, revert), and follow-up actions. The most critical guidance (call FIRST, cheap) is front-loaded. It is not padded, though it could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 tool that aggregates rich context from multiple windows and states, the description leaves nothing missing. It explains the output semantics (what the result says), the merging behavior, the revert caution, and the annotation follow-up. Even without an output schema, the agent knows what to expect and how to act. Fully complete for its complexity.

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 only parameter is projectId, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain projectId at all, relying on it being an obvious identifier. While not misleading, it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Given low coverage, some compensation would be ideal, but the parameter is trivially understood, so a '3' reflects acceptable but not strong semantic support.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('current editor context'), then enumerates the concrete contents: active page/component, selection mapped to file:line, preview device, annotations, revert status, and queued requests. This goes well beyond a vague summary and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like view_annotation, which is referenced as a follow-up for annotations.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Call this FIRST when the user refers to something without naming it... reports a problem without saying where... or implies they triggered something in Floot.' Provides concrete examples ('this', 'here', 'the button', 'it's broken', 'I clicked fix'). Also explains the multi-window selection merging behavior, directing the agent on how to interpret a 'no selection' from the answering window versus a deposited selection from another.

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