context-select_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately states that the tool changes the selection state of all scene objects, but it does not discuss edge cases like hidden objects, locked objects, or whether the invert operation is based on the current selection. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that names the tool's main purpose in plain language. Every word contributes to understanding the operation and scope, with no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter selection tool with no output schema, the description plus the parameter enum is nearly complete. It explains the action and target ('all scene objects'), and the schema supplies the exact enum values and default. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether only visible or selectable objects are affected, but that is not essential.

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%, but the parameter is a self-explanatory enum with values SELECT/DESELECT/INVERT and a default of DESELECT. The description paraphrases these actions but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, such as default behavior or interaction rules. It is sufficient but not additive.

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 phrase and resource: 'Select, deselect, or invert selection for all scene objects.' This clearly identifies both the operation and its global scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like context-select_objects or mesh-select_all by emphasizing 'all scene objects.'

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you want to change selection state for every scene object. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the 'all scene objects' qualifier implies the intended scope versus more selective tools.

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