pr_getSelection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real non-annotation context: the returned track + 1-based index values are usable as clip refs, which tells the agent how to chain into clip operations.

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 compact sentence with the app prefix, the resource, and the return-value note front-loaded; no wasted words.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential return shape (track + 1-based index as clip refs). It could say whether the result is a list and what happens when nothing is selected, but the core need is met.

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 100%: the single `sequence` parameter is documented as 'Sequence name; omit for the active sequence.' The description adds nothing further about this parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and resource (clips currently selected in the timeline) and even hints at the shape of the result (track + 1-based index). It is clear enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like pr_razor or pr_removeClips, though it does not explicitly contrast with read siblings such as pr_getClipProperties.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., pr_getClipProperties for a known clip, pr_tracks for structure), nor any stated preconditions such as needing a sequence open or being in the right panel. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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