get_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what is returned (count, handles, types, layers) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe behavior when nothing is selected. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and result contents, with no unnecessary words. Highly structured for quick comprehension.

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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and returned content. A minor gap is the lack of explicit handling for an empty selection, but this is not critical for such a straightforward getter.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document there. The description adds value by explaining that the implicit input is the current GUI selection, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 clearly states a specific query operation: retrieving the user's current GUI selection, listing the data types (count, handles, types, layers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like select_by and select_window, which modify selection rather than read it.

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 usage context: enables 'do X on what I selected', indicating when to invoke it (when the agent needs to act on the current selection). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the niche is well implied by the contrast with selection-modifying siblings.

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