get_time_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (an object with start and end times), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it omits the edge case of no active selection (empty/null values), time units/format, and whether this is a pure read 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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the return block. No filler. The Returns block is not redundant because no output schema is defined.

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 trivial no-param getter with no annotations, the description covers purpose and return type, which is close to adequate. It stops short of describing behavior when no selection exists, which is the one plausible ambiguity for a getter of this kind.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (current time selection), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the set_time_selection and clear_time_selection siblings. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings, but the purpose itself is crisp.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. The description gives no hint that this is the read counterpart to set_time_selection/clear_time_selection, nor what a caller would use the result for (e.g., feeding zoom_to_selection). Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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