ass_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that this mutates session state (not document content), enumerates the four mode behaviors including that "set" replaces, and describes the return payload. It omits whether the selection persists across operations, undo interaction, or whether an active document is required, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is structured and waste-free, with each line adding usable information. Slightly docstring-formatted rather than prose-optimized, but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the polymorphic spec, the mode enum, and the return fields (with an output schema also present per context signals). What remains unstated — preconditions such as an open document and whether the selection is saved — is minor but would round out the definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: spec is documented as a polymorphic selection spelling with concrete examples ("all"/None, "0-4,7", 5, [0, 2], {"style": "Default"}, {"text_contains": "hi"}) and mode enumerates all four accepted values plus its default. The reference to the internal ``base.resolve_indices`` is opaque to an agent, keeping this short of a 5.

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+resource: updating the session's line selection, with the spec/mode arguments making the effect concrete. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from read-only siblings like ass_get_selection and from document-level ass_select_document, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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 mode list ("set" replace / "add" / "remove" / "toggle") implicitly tells the agent which invocation to choose for a given intent, which is real usage guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no comparison against ass_get_selection or ass_select_document.

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