selection_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavior beyond that — it doesn't say what is returned when nothing is selected, whether multiple objects can be selected, or how order is determined.

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?

Three words is appropriately short and front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a definition, so the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. Adding a verb like 'Returns' would cost one word and materially improve it.

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 zero-parameter read with rich annotations and an output schema, minimal description is tolerable — the schema explains the return shape. Still, it omits the one thing an agent can't get elsewhere: that there must be an active selection and what happens when the selection is empty.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify — baseline 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here.

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 is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name ('selection_get' → 'the currently selected objects') without a verb or stated behavior. It does identify the resource, but an agent learns nothing it couldn't infer from the name plus the sibling 'selection_set'/'selection_clear'.

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 call this versus siblings such as 'scene_list_objects', 'object_get', or 'scene_tree', even though 'selection_get' depends on a prior selection existing. No prerequisites or exclusions of any kind.

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