select

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 does disclose a critical side effect (replaces current selection), which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens with invalid handles. The disclosure is partial but meaningful.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the critical replacement behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple selection tool, the description covers the core action but lacks details on the return value (if any) and edge cases like empty handles or invalid identifiers. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context would be expected, though the essential operation is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter semantics. It does not go beyond schema: 'handles' is merely an array of integers, and the description implies they identify objects but does not define what a handle is or how to obtain one. Minimal added value over 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 clearly states the action: 'Select objects by handle' with a specific verb and resource, and adds a key distinction by noting it 'replaces the current selection.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_selection or list_objects, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_selection or transform. It only describes the action without mentioning context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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