select_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains the crossing behavior and mentions optional filters, but it does not disclose whether the selection replaces the current selection, whether it triggers a UI highlight, or any side effects beyond the selection state. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the core functionality, the critical crossing distinction, and the filter options. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, which reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers the decision logic and filters, and the coordinate system is reasonably inferable. It might have added a note about coordinate units or interaction with the current selection, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. It explains the meaning of 'crossing' and mentions 'type/layer filter' which maps to entity_type and layer parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the coordinate parameters (x1,y1,x2,y2), though these are relatively self-explanatory from the schema.

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 the tool's action ('Select+highlight') and resource ('by rectangular area'), with a specific mechanism. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'select_by' and 'zoom_window' by clearly indicating a rectangular selection operation.

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 implies usage for rectangular-area selection and explains the crossing parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'select_by' or 'get_selection'. No exclusion criteria are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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