get_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' correctly implies a non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about behavior when the selection is empty, whether it requires an active/connected editor, or what the selection payload looks like. Adequate but thin for a 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?

One short sentence with the action and the object front-loaded; nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 one-optional-param read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what but not the return shape (selection range? text? empty state?) or the failure mode. Just enough to call it correctly, not enough to interpret the result confidently.

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% and the schema already explains that documentId is optional when only one document is connected. The description only echoes the notion of 'in the document' and adds no syntax or default-value meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('current user selection (cursor)'), which no sibling tool competes with. It stops short of 5 only because 'the document' is ambiguous across the Word/PowerPoint/Excel siblings, so the agent cannot tell which document surface this applies to from the description alone.

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 gives no indication of when to reach for this tool versus the many read_* / inspect_* siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. a live editor session). Usage has to be inferred entirely from the phrase 'current user selection'.

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