selection_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Comments do not automatically wake the agent,' which is non-obvious and useful for an agent deciding whether to poll or rely on wake-ups. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is a separate concise sentence. 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is read and adds the wake-up caveat. It doesn't describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap. The sibling list shows related tools, but the description doesn't need to enumerate them all.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. However, the description does not explain what documentId means beyond the schema's pattern. The tool name and description imply documentId identifies the document containing the selection, but this is not explicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the single parameter is simple and the description's context partially clarifies it.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('browser selection and relevant anchored comments'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic document_read or comments_read. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource scope is specific enough to differentiate it from the listed siblings.

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 context: it reads the current browser selection and anchored comments. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus comments_read or document_read, nor does it mention exclusions. The second sentence about comments not waking the agent is a usage caveat but not a full when-to-use guide.

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