select_all

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only "Returns status dict" and says nothing about whether an existing selection is discarded, whether the operation is undoable, or whether it fails when no image is open — significant gaps for a tool that mutates editor state.

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 purpose is stated in the first line, followed by compact Parameters and Returns sections with no filler. The structure is clean, though the parameter and return lines are terse enough to be near-trivial.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and a rough return value. It is adequate but leaves the key semantic question — that this overwrites the current selection — unanswered.

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 compensate, and it does add real meaning by stating that image_index targets an image and defaults to 0. However, it never explains what the index refers to (e.g., position in list_images output) or what happens if the index is out of range.

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?

"Select the entire image canvas" gives a specific verb (select) and resource scope (entire canvas), which is enough to distinguish it from select_rectangle, select_by_color, and select_none. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state the contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name and from siblings like select_none, invert_selection, and select_by_color that this replaces the current selection with a full-canvas selection, and nothing in the text confirms or denies that.

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