show_ai_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that a colored overlay is shown and that a companion extension is required, which adds useful context beyond the tool name. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, persistence, or the nature of the overlay beyond the basic effect.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information about purpose or requirements.

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 simple visual tool with a well-covered schema and no output schema, the description includes purpose, behavior, and a prerequisite. It could be enhanced by mentioning alternatives, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% and each parameter has a clear description (cellIds, color, filePath). The tool description does not add additional meaning to these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 highlights specific cells in a draw.io diagram as being selected/edited by AI, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from generic highlighting by tying it to AI selection, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'highlight_element'.

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 notes a prerequisite (requires companion VS Code extension) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The purpose implies usage for showing AI selection, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion criteria.

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