get_selection

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no return shape, no indication of what happens with no selection, no mention of size limits or truncation behavior despite maxBytes/maxNodes params. Only the word "Read" implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The second sentence, however, duplicates what the schema already states about the profile enum, so it doesn't fully earn 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is too thin — an agent cannot tell what is returned, whether results are truncated, or how it relates to sibling read tools.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds no meaning beyond it — the profile hint restates the schema text almost verbatim. maxNodes has no description anywhere, and the interaction between maxBytes/maxNodes and truncation is never explained.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: read the current page and selected nodes. It doesn't explain how it differs from likely-overlapping siblings such as get_design_context, get_metadata, or get_screenshot, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Prefer summary for discovery" is guidance about a parameter value, not about when to call this tool instead of the many sibling read tools. There are no exclusions or preconditions (e.g., whether a session or active selection is required).

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