get_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a full selection object and explains a nuance about visibility reliability ('a selection under review is listed as На модерации either way'). While it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, the description clearly implies a non-mutating retrieval, and the added moderation context adds useful behavioral insight beyond a common get. It would be improved by an explicit statement that it performs no side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently contrasts with the sibling tool and explains why this tool is necessary. The moderation explanation adds a slightly tangential detail but supports the usage guidance, so it earns its place. Not perfectly minimal but well structured.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It explains what the result contains, why it differs from list_selections, and the reliability caveat about visibility. Error handling or invalid uuid cases are not mentioned, but for a simple getter this is acceptable. The description covers the essential contextual information.

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 coverage is 100% — the uuid parameter is fully described as 'The selection, from list_selections()[].uuid.' The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The contrast with list_selections is about the return value, not the parameter, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies exactly what the tool returns — a full selection with name, description, product count, status, and public visibility. It also distinguishes itself from list_selections by explicitly stating what list_selections lacks. The verb and resource are clear, and the tool is clearly differentiated from its sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool over list_selections: when you need the description or the `public` flag. It also explains why this is the only reliable read of visibility, given the moderation ambiguity. This provides clear contextual guidance.

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