select_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions parameters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens to previously selected objects, error conditions, or performance implications. The description is minimal and fails to provide essential context for safe and effective use.

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 very concise with a brief statement followed by bullet points for parameters. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the bullet points are somewhat cryptic and could be more informative, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity and is structured efficiently.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the tool's domain (e.g., 3D modeling in Blender inferred from sibling tools), behavioral context, and parameter meanings. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional context.

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 lists parameters ('mode: replace|add|remove' and 'active: optional active object') but doesn't explain their semantics beyond basic labels. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'active object' means, how 'names' relate to objects, or the effects of different modes. This adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 states 'Select objects by name' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'select' means in this context (UI selection, logical selection, etc.). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_scene_info' or 'set_transform' which might also involve objects. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the selection mechanism or domain.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lists parameters but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for 3D modeling, UI interaction, or another domain, nor does it mention sibling tools like 'get_scene_info' as alternatives for object information.

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