get_selected_ui_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a valuable behavioral detail: the response includes mandatory implementation rules and constraints for the AI agent. However, it does not mention behavior when no selection exists, whether it is strictly read-only (implied by 'Get'), or how the optional projectPath affects the result.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the currently selected UI system') and adds the key additional output without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple getter with one optional parameter, the description adequately states what is returned. However, the absence of an output schema and the large sibling set mean the agent could benefit from knowing the return format or how to distinguish this from get_ui_system. The description is serviceable but leaves some context to inference.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter (projectPath) as 'Optional project root path to inspect'. The description adds no further meaning about how projectPath interacts with the active session/project, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly defined resource ('currently selected UI system'), and also states the additional output of 'mandatory implementation rules and constraints'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ui_system or list_ui_systems by highlighting the 'selected' scope.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ui_system or list_ui_systems. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' statement, leaving the agent to infer the intended use from the 'currently selected' phrase alone.

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