raw_sel_end

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It candidly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable side-effect transparency. The caveat to 'inspect the command name first' adds a cautionary note, though its meaning is somewhat unclear.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose before adding caveats. Each sentence earns its place, though 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer. Overall, it is efficiently structured without unnecessary fluff.

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 zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the operation, the target of selection, and possible side effects. It could be more complete by distinguishing itself from near-identical siblings, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema confirms an empty property set. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds the relevant confirmation that no arguments are 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 opens with a specific action: 'Set selection from cursor to end of track.' This is a precise verb-resource statement that clearly conveys what the tool does. While there are similar sibling tools like select_cursor_to_track_end, the core intent is unambiguous and the 'SelEnd' label maps directly to the function.

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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as raw_sel_start or select_cursor_to_track_end. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools that could achieve similar outcomes. The advice to 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable usage guidance for choosing between tools.

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