get_selection_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation, which provides some transparency, but the description does not disclose behavior for edge cases like an empty selection, invalid doc_id, or whether any document state changes.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded but is perhaps too terse to carry the behavioral and contextual information expected for a tool with no annotations.

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 no annotations and many closely related siblings, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the returned 'information' contains, when to prefer this over other selection tools, or what preconditions apply. An output schema exists, which likely covers return structure, but it does not compensate for the missing usage guidance.

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 does not explain the role of doc_id at all. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory as a document identifier, but the description fails to connect it to the 'current text selection' or explain why it is required.

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 identifies a getter operation for the current text selection, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not specify what aspects of the selection are returned, so it remains somewhat vague and does not fully distinguish itself from selection-related siblings like get_selected_pos_by_set.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus the many selection- and document-related siblings, nor does it mention any preconditions such as needing an active document or an existing selection.

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