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. It discloses the internal function (hou.selectedNodes()), the exclusion of non-node items, the return structure (selected/count with path/type/category), and the server-side response cap. This is strong transparency, though it could mention edge cases like empty selection or order.

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 concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful detail about behavior, scope, return format, or limitations. No fluff or repetition.

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 read tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return format well. However, the missing parameter semantics for the required 'ctx' parameter is a critical gap. The description does not enable full understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 required 'ctx' parameter is completely undocumented in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent has no clue what 'ctx' represents or how to populate it, making correct invocation impossible without external knowledge.

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 reads the current node selection, specifies it uses hou.selectedNodes() rather than selectedItems(), and explicitly excludes network boxes/notes/dots. This distinguishes it from any generic selection tool and matches the name and sibling context.

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 implies a usage context: use this when you need the node selection only, not mixed items. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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