select_all_table_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so richly: it states the operation is a table-level command (not OS input) that is accepted, and it discloses that the multi-selection is transient focus state that any focus-changing command collapses back to the active row. It even names the non-collapsing read path, which is exactly the kind of destructive/side-effect context annotations would otherwise have to carry.

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?

Although the purpose is front-loaded, the body is a dense multi-hundred-word block mixing Russian and English, with run-on sentences and nested asides. Much of the protocol-internal detail could be trimmed or moved to documentation, so the definition is bloated rather than economical.

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 protocol-driven 1C automation tool with no annotations and an output schema ({base_button, target_button, accepted}), the description covers the important behavioral traps an agent must know (transient selection, single-session capture) fairly completely. The main gap is the absence of explicit when-to-use guidance and parameter meaning.

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 coverage is 0% across three parameters (host, port, capture) with no descriptions in the schema. The description never explains what these parameters mean or how the 'capture' default relates to the referenced capture-on-demand behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opening clause 'Select ALL rows of the table natively (multi-select)' states a specific verb+resource and scope, and the 'ALL' / multi-select framing distinguishes it from the singular sibling select_table_row. Beyond that first clause the purpose is buried under protocol internals, but the core action is identifiable 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance and no routing versus select_table_row or other selection tools. The only actionable usage note is the implicit constraint that select-then-act must be captured in ONE session, which is a caveat about mechanics rather than a when-to-use-vs-alternative statement.

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