select_text

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context such as requiring exact text from the accessibility tree and disambiguation techniques, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, exact matching instruction, and disambiguation tip. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to specify text, handling duplicates, and selection modes. It could mention return value implications, but the lack of output schema reduces the need. Overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that text must match the accessibility tree exactly and by providing disambiguation guidance for prefix/suffix parameters. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Select text inside a text element, or place the text cursor before or after it.' This clearly defines the verb 'select' and the resource 'text inside a text element'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like click, type_text, etc.

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?

The description provides explicit instructions: 'Provide text exactly as it appears in the accessibility tree, including any Markdown formatting.' and suggests disambiguation with prefix/suffix. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear for the intended use case.

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