select_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses behavioral traits: it explains the selection modes (replace, add, deselect), clarifies that some actions ignore parameters (e.g., 'clear' ignores object_name), and describes the return format. It lacks details on permissions or rate limits, but covers core behavior well.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by detailed parameter explanations and examples. While comprehensive, some sections (like the full Returns dict) could be slightly condensed, but every sentence adds value for tool invocation.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, return values, and examples. It fully compensates for the lack of structured data, ensuring the agent can correctly invoke the tool without gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds extensive meaning beyond the schema: it details object_name formats (exact, wildcard, multiple), object_type examples, and action options with clear semantics. This fully documents all three parameters, making it highly valuable.

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 states the tool's purpose: '在 3ds Max 场景中选择或取消选择对象' (select or deselect objects in a 3ds Max scene). It specifies the exact action (select/deselect) and resource (objects), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_scene_objects (which only retrieves) or delete_object (which removes).

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 clear context on when to use this tool (e.g., selecting by name, type, or clearing selections) and includes examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_scene_objects for listing without selection.

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