plasticity_list_named_selections

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope information ('all semantic named selections') and timing ('current document revision'), but it does not clarify whether stored definitions are modified or only reported, nor what the operation returns. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the operation. The only slight issue is that the verb/name mismatch makes the structure less immediately clear than it could be.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned or what 're-evaluate' means in practice. It is minimally adequate and the annotations cover safety, but it leaves the result format and behavioral effect unspecified.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage. Per the rubric, zero parameters establish a baseline of 4; there is no additional parameter meaning for the description to supply.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Re-evaluate all semantic named selections.' However, it uses the verb 're-evaluate' while the tool name says 'list', so an agent may be unsure whether this lists selections, refreshes them, or recomputes them. It also does not distinguish the tool from sibling save/delete named-selection operations.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as the sibling named-selection tools. The phrase 'against the current document revision' gives context but does not help an agent choose this tool over another.

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