desktop_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool verifies the result, that owned-browser HTML fields focus automatically after range validation, and that native edits inside graphemes can be refused. These are useful traits, but 'verify the result' is ambiguous (does the tool verify or should the agent verify?), and the description does not state whether selection is non-destructive or what failure modes exist beyond grapheme refusal.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds a distinct behavioral note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The core operation and offset semantics are covered, but there are gaps: the meaning of 'verify the result' is unclear, no return value or error behavior is described, and 'owned-browser HTML fields' is jargon that may confuse an agent. Given no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave the agent to infer important runtime details.

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 clarify the parameters. It explains that offsets are Unicode code-point offsets, which is essential, and that when start_offset equals end_offset the tool places the caret. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema. It does not explicitly describe element_id, but that identifier is self-explanatory in context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Select a text range' using offsets, with the caret behavior when offsets are equal. It is distinct from siblings like desktop_set_value or desktop_focus_element because it addresses selection rather than value assignment or focus. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need to select a text range or place a caret in an element. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as desktop_set_value or desktop_type. The note about owned-browser HTML fields provides a contextual condition but not a decision rule for selecting this tool over others.

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