live_selection

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is low and the safety profile is already covered. The description usefully discloses what content comes back (selection plus cursor paragraph), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits behavior when nothing is selected or no live app is attached, so it adds some but not rich context.

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, and it leads with the primary return value. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a tool with no output schema rather than genuinely concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does describe the returned content. However, it leaves out edge cases (empty selection, missing live session) and any prerequisite context, which a low-complexity read tool would benefit from stating.

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 100%, so both 'doc' and 'engine' are fully documented in the schema itself, including the enum restriction. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource returned: the current text selection plus the containing paragraph. It is a noun-phrase description of output rather than a verb+resource action, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like live_select or para_get, but an agent can understand what data this yields.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus live_select, live_status, live_places, or para_get. No prerequisites (e.g. a live app must be open with a document) and no exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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