spatial_select_actors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important behavioral distinction: dry-run is a read-only resolution pass while selection/focus require explicit mutation opt-in. However, it does not explain side effects of editor selection, the meaning of focus_distance, selection_mode, include_hidden, or what happens to prior selections.

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, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, then adds a useful KB pointer, mode/gating semantics, and an example. Every sentence earns its place, though the example and KB line could arguably be integrated more cleanly.

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 16-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, this description is not complete enough. It gives clear mode semantics but lacks explanation of spatial filter types, coordinate formats, filtering precedence, selection behavior, and focus behavior. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter and side-effect guidance.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only touches query, tag_filter, and dry_run through the example. The remaining 13 parameters—including center, radius, box_min/max, selection_mode, focus_viewport, include_hidden, and allow_empty_selection—receive no explanation, leaving the agent without enough semantic grounding.

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 a specific verb ('Resolve actors') and resource ('actors by spatial filters'), and it also indicates the optional selection/focus capability. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling tool spatial_query_actors, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit operational guidance: dry-run mode is read-only, and editor selection plus viewport focus require dry_run=false and allow_mutation=true. It also includes a concrete example invocation. It does not name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the context for when to use mutation vs. dry-run is clear.

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