extract_selection

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

The description discloses the core behavior: removal and gap closure. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of transparency. It does not detail side effects (e.g., effects on markers, undo behavior, or requirement for active sequence). While adequate for a simple 0-parameter tool, additional context would improve transparency.

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, clear sentence that directly conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary details.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple edit operation. It explains the action and the effect (gap closure). Minor improvement could mention that it operates on the active sequence's in/out points, but it is sufficient as is.

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 has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 since schema already covers all properties. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Score reflects the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool 'remove[s] and close[s] gap' the content between sequence in/out points, which is a specific verb+resource action. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lift_selection' (removes but leaves gap) and 'ripple_delete' (deletes without gap).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is appropriate when you want to remove content and close the resulting gap, while 'lift_selection' might be used to keep the gap. The description lacks usage context and does not contrast with siblings.

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