check_baseline_from_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior — that the code is pulled automatically from the editor rather than supplied as an argument — but says nothing about permissions, failure modes when nothing is selected, or what the analysis returns.

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 front-loaded 'AUTOMATIC CODE RETRIEVAL:' label is good structure. However, the last two clauses ('No need to copy/paste code' and 'avoid manual code copying') restate the same point, so a third of the text is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the input-source mechanics. The main gap is lack of any contrast with the sibling check_baseline and no hint about the result 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum values are fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description mentions only 'selection' and 'active file', omitting the clipboard enum value entirely, so it neither adds nor fully mirrors the schema.

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+resource ('analyzes ... code ... for Baseline compatibility') and clarifies the input is auto-retrieved rather than pasted. It never names the sibling check_baseline, so the agent must infer the distinction from the 'no copy/paste' framing rather than an explicit contrast.

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 when to use it ('no need to copy/paste code'), which is useful context. But it never states when to prefer the sibling check_baseline or what distinguishes the two, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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