select_linked

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

The description discloses the core behavior—expanding selection to linked geometry—but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., existence of a current selection), mode requirements (likely Edit mode), and error handling. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, and these omissions reduce transparency.

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 at five sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by clarification, usage, and parameter/return details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits important context such as the requirement for Edit mode, the definition of 'current selection,' and potential side effects (e.g., selection changes). This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes the only parameter 'object_name' as 'Name of the mesh object,' adding value beyond the schema's type and title. However, it doesn't clarify constraints (e.g., object must be a mesh) or behavior if the object is invalid.

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's purpose: selecting all geometry linked to the current selection, expanding to include connected vertices, edges, and faces. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'select_objects' by focusing on connected components within a mesh object rather than selecting by name or type.

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 usage guidance by stating it is 'useful for isolating mesh islands or selecting connected components.' While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context of sibling tools like 'select_objects' implies alternative use cases, and the guidance given is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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