Ase Deselect

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core effect—clearing the server-side selection—but does not discuss idempotence, whether the editor-visible selection is also affected, or any other side effects. For a simple zero-argument operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the object. Every word contributes meaning and the description is appropriately minimal for this tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows what action is invoked and what state changes. The main ambiguity is the meaning of 'server-side selection' and the lack of usage context, but the low complexity keeps this acceptable.

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 accepts zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing additional the description needs to clarify.

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 action ('clear') on a specific resource ('the server-side selection'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It adds the 'server-side' qualifier beyond the title, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling selection tools.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ase_select_* or krita_clear_selection. The 'server-side' qualifier hints at a distinction, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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