Get Selected Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of transient UI state, which is useful, but says nothing about the failure case (empty selection vs. error), whether the selection is stale, or any limits. That is a notable gap for a no-annotation tool, though the existence of an output schema lightens the load on return-value disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the key qualifier ('currently selected') appears early.

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 trivial zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. The only missing piece is empty-selection behavior, which is minor given the output schema covers the success shape.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the selection is implicit ambient state rather than something passed in.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource ('the currently selected text in the decompiled code view'), which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like get_class_source or get_strings that return whole artifacts. It is clear without naming an alternative, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over get_class_source or get_smali_of_class, and no prerequisites such as 'requires an active editor selection'. The agent must infer that this reads transient editor/UI state rather than persisted code.

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