ass_select_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a side effect (clearing the session selection) and the return (document summary), plus the 0-based line-index convention. It omits permission requirements, error conditions, and what happens to any prior selection state beyond 'clearing'.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect in the first sentence, followed by return and index notes. Compact and largely waste-free, though the 0-based line-index remark is tangential to a document-selection tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still notes it returns the document summary. For a single-parameter selection tool with an ambiguous name, the description is mostly sufficient, though the lack of usage disambiguation from siblings is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It conveys that doc_id identifies the document to make current, but adds no format or example detail beyond that. Marginally better than the bare schema, but not rich.

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: 'Make ``doc_id`` the current document.' The parenthetical '(clearing the session selection)' clarifies the effect, and the reference to :func:`ass_open` hints at the relationship to the sibling that opens documents. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from siblings like ass_select, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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?

Usage is implied by the reference to ass_open and the note about clearing the session selection, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., ass_open vs ass_select vs this tool). The agent must infer the context.

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