get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this reads the live UI selection state (not a stored list) and that the result varies with what the user has picked, which is useful context. It does not, however, state that it is read-only/no-side-effect, what happens with an empty selection, or any limits, so it only partially compensates for the missing 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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then details the return shape compactly. Efficient with no filler, though the return-shape sentence partly duplicates the output schema and thus is not strictly necessary.

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 tool with an output schema already present, the description is essentially complete: purpose, scope, and a breakdown of the returned entity shapes. Minor gaps remain around empty-selection behavior and read-only guarantees, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema description coverage is 100% and nothing about arguments needs further clarification.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('entities currently selected in the SketchUp UI'), with the scope qualifier 'currently selected' distinguishing it from sibling readers like get_model_info, list_components, or find_components. An agent can identify this as the live-selection reader without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (call it to read what the user has selected), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like get_model_info or list_components that also enumerate entities. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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