select_by

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns handles and that the user visually sees the selection, indicating a non-destructive UI-visible operation. It also mentions wildcard behavior, which is a useful quirk. It does not explicitly state whether the current selection is replaced or accumulated, but 'select' implies replacement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by return value and UI behavior. Every word earns its place; 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?

For a simple selection tool with two optional params and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it selects, how (wildcards), and what the caller gets (handles). It does not mention selection accumulation/replacement semantics, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It does: 'by type and/or layer' clarifies both entity_type and layer, and the parenthetical example ('layer='MUR*'') demonstrates wildcard syntax. This compensates for the bare schema, though it does not separately document each parameter's exact matching rules.

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 states exactly what the tool does: selects and highlights entities by type and/or layer, with wildcard support. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like select_window (spatial selection) and get_selection (retrieving current selection) by specifying property-based selection.

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 for when to use the tool: selecting entities based on type or layer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mention of 'by type and/or layer' implies the niche relative to select_window. A brief note on when not to use it would improve this dimension.

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