swebsy_read_selection

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee that secrets are never surfaced, which goes beyond a simple read. However, it doesn't disclose behavior when no component is selected, potential errors, or confirm it's side-effect free. With no annotations, more transparency is expected.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action, lists the returned fields, and includes the security note. No redundant words or filler.

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 no-parameter read operation, the description adequately lists the return fields (type, classes, attributes, text) and adds a security guarantee. It does not mention empty-selection handling or error conditions, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'currently selected component' and enumerates what is returned (type, classes, attributes, text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or create, and from other read tools like swebsy_read_page by focusing on the selection.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like swebsy_read_page or swebsy_capture. It doesn't clarify the concept of 'selection' or provide any conditional guidance for an agent choosing among read tools.

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