mesh.selection_report

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It only states it reports selection, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, if it modifies state, or what the output format is. No mention of side effects or dependencies on active selection.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is barely adequate. It explains what is reported but omits details about the selection state and object specificity. It could be more complete by mentioning the output or constraints.

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 description does not mention the 'object' parameter. The schema provides a title, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It fails to clarify that the parameter specifies which mesh object to inspect or that it defaults to the active object.

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 'Report selected vertices, edges, and faces' clearly states the tool reports selection data for mesh components. It uses specific verbs and resources. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like mesh.report, but the tool name provides enough differentiation.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as context.report or mesh.report. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection requirements, or typical use cases.

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