Select by Properties

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the empty-result ambiguity that motivated the design and explains that `filtered_by` reports which filters actually ran. This gives the agent useful failure-mode awareness that structured fields do not convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two supporting sentences each add distinct value: one explains the design rationale and its failure-mode implication, the other points to the output field. No filler, though the rationale sentence is slightly longer than necessary.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only, fully-schema-documented filter tool: it covers what it does, why the interface is shaped this way, and what the result tells you. It does not mention how the filtered selection is consumed downstream, but the output schema presumably covers the return shape.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented with type, default, and meaning. The description adds the `filtered_by` reporting behavior, which is output-related rather than per-parameter, so it earns the baseline score but no more.

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?

States the operation concretely as 'filter the drawing by properties' and anchors it to AutoCAD's familiar QSELECT command, which positions it as the general property-based selection tool. This distinguishes it from geometric selectors like selection_polygon and selection_window and from narrower property selectors like analysis_select_by_layer.

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 QSELECT analogy implies this is the right tool when the selection criterion is entity properties rather than geometry or a single specific attribute. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list.

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