Read row selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call hard-fails outside resource or capacity views and points to another tool. The trailing 'Read-only, no undo step' largely restates the annotations, so it is useful context but partly redundant.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and where it applies; nothing is padded. The final read-only clause duplicates the annotations and could be dropped without loss.

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 read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the remaining gaps: applicable view scope, empty-result semantics, and the failure/fallback path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The mention of 'selected:false' describes an output field rather than an input, and the output schema already covers returns.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Reads which row ... is selected') and scopes it to the resource/capacity view, which separates it from the many view/report siblings. It also clarifies the result semantics ('selected:false means none is'), so an agent knows what an empty answer looks like without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit negative condition ('In any other view the call fails') and routes the agent to rillsoft_view_state_apply in that case, which is real routing guidance. It does not, however, say when reading the selection is the right thing to do versus its setter counterpart rillsoft_row_selection_apply, so the primary usage context is left implicit.

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