get_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether it is read-only, what happens when nothing is selected, or any side effects. While this is a simple get operation, the lack of any behavioral context leaves gaps.

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, tightly written sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb 'Get' and immediately specifies the resource. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description largely suffices. It names the exact resource and scope. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of shapes) or behavior on empty selection, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools that clarify its role.

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 the input schema already fully covers them. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly adds no extraneous parameter information. No compensation is needed.

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 the action (get) and the resource (shapes currently selected in the active Visio window). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_shapes (all shapes) and get_visio_status (status), making its specific purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the agent needs selected shapes rather than all shapes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It relies on the reader to infer context from the sibling list, so guidance is implied but not stated.

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