get_selection

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cache-sync side effect, which is useful, but it does not explain implications such as whether the cache is overwritten, failure behaviors, or if an active document is required. It provides some behavioral insight but not comprehensive 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the main action and side effect without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and return value (stable UUIDs) and mentions the cache side effect, but it lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance. Given the tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema, this is only partially complete.

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%, and the description makes no mention of timeoutSec or writeUuids. The agent is left to guess what these parameters control, despite the boolean likely toggling the cache sync. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Read'), the object ('current InDesign selection'), and the outcome ('stable UUIDs'), while also mentioning the side effect ('sync them into the session cache'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_document_model and analyze_page, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage when the agent needs stable UUIDs for the current selection, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or trade-offs. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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