get_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape, per-element counts, and the important limit of only the first 50 selected indices, which helps a caller confirm before acting.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by concise rationale and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place and the format is easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple one-parameter getter, absent annotations, and available output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, dependency context, parameter meaning, and return behavior including the 50-index limit.

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. It describes object_name as the name of a mesh object, which is helpful, but the parameter is self-explanatory and the description adds little beyond that basic clarification.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Report what is currently selected on a mesh.' It clearly distinguishes this read-only selection query from sibling tools like select_objects and mesh tools that act on the current selection.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: without it, a caller cannot see the result of its own selection, and mesh tools acting on the current selection would be operating blind. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but the dependency context is strong.

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