select_similar

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behaviors that the operation mutates the current selection and depends on an existing selection, and summarizes the return as a count. It does not state failure behavior when nothing is selected, undo implications, or whether selection is additive or replacing.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then prerequisites, then Args/Returns. The long enum list is justified because the schema enum is unstructured; little else is wasted.

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 selection-mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no detail) and unannotated params, the description supplies purpose, precondition, param semantics, and return shape. Only edge-case behavior (empty selection, additive vs replacing) is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it groups the flat, alphabetically-sorted enum into FACE_/EDGE_/VERT_ categories with semantic labels, and gives 'threshold' a meaning and range (0.0 to 1.0) absent from the schema. object_name is only trivially covered.

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 a specific verb and mechanism: 'Grow the current selection to geometry that resembles it' plus the comparison basis. An agent can tell this apart from a plain select tool, though it never names its closest siblings (select_linked, select_by_index).

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Requires something to already be selected: it compares against that.' That tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It stops short of naming alternatives such as select_linked or select_by_index for related selection tasks.

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