Select

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool modifies state non-destructively. The description confirms this by stating 'Creates or modifies selections' and adds behavioral context such as providing bounds for shapes and color sample for color-range. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects like requiring an active document or affecting layer visibility.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing specific usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet covers the main selection types and parameter 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation or nothing). It does not mention return values. Additionally, prerequisites like having an active document are not stated. For a tool with six selection types, it covers usage well but misses return and prerequisite information.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'params' is type-specific and for rectangle/ellipse provide bounds, for color-range provide sample color and fuzziness. This helps the agent understand how to structure the params object depending on the type, which is not fully detailed in the schema's property descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Creates or modifies selections.' It lists specific selection types (all, none, inverse, rectangle, ellipse, color-range) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ps_mask or ps_align. The verb 'creates or modifies' combined with the resource 'selections' is specific and informative.

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 explicitly tells when to use each selection type: use 'all' for selecting everything, 'none' to deselect, 'inverse' to invert, and provides guidance for geometric and color-range selections. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations, so usage is clear.

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