obj_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this mutates selection state, returns matched/selected counts, and reports success=false with a reason when selected count is lower. It still omits whether existing selections are replaced or preserved, which matters for a selection tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then structured into Args and Returns sections. The return explanation is somewhat redundant given that an output schema exists, but the matched-versus-selected distinction is useful and the text is not bloated.

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 two-parameter selection tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition gives useful filter syntax, selection-state behavior, and return semantics. It still lacks valid object_type examples and does not clarify whether selecting adds to or replaces the active selection, but the remaining gaps are relatively minor.

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, and it does explain that filter is a pipe-separated list of property=value conditions using AND logic. The object_type explanation is somewhat vague, giving '(schematic or PCB)' rather than enumerating valid Altium object types, so it only partially covers the required parameter.

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 plus resource: select objects matching a filter on the active document, and it clarifies that this sets selection state for visual highlighting. It also distinguishes the operation from its clearing sibling, obj_deselect_all, so the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 states that obj_deselect_all should be used to clear the selection, giving a clear alternative for the inverse operation. It does not explicitly contrast with obj_query or explain when to inspect objects without selecting them, so guidance is strong but not comprehensive.

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