select_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the selection is visual, requires focus, or has side effects. It only says 'select a text range', which is insufficient for a tool with a nested target object and multiple parameters.

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 sentence, which is concise and easy to parse. However, it omits essential details about parameters and usage, and the brevity works against completeness. It is not front-loaded with the most important constraints beyond the basic purpose.

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 tool with three required parameters including a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, this description is severely lacking. It provides no information on how to construct the target, interpret start/end, or what the outcome is. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on this description.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. It does not define what 'start' and 'end' represent (e.g., character offsets), nor does it clarify the structure or meaning of the 'target' object (type, index, state_id). This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 states a clear verb 'select' and resource 'text range within an editable element', which distinguishes it from click-based siblings and value-setting tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate against other selection or editing tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any alternative tools. The agent is left to infer its usage from the name and description alone.

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