Select Objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly fails to: it doesn't state that the tool mutates the scene's selection state, what happens to a prior selection by default, or what occurs when a pattern matches nothing. The 'extend' semantics live only in the parameter schema, not the description.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a selection-mutating tool, so it stops short of 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameters are fully covered. The remaining gap is behavioral: for a tool that changes selection state without any annotations, the description should say that it replaces the current selection by default and how pattern matching behaves.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (patterns, extend, session_key) are already documented in the schema, including the replace-vs-extend distinction. The description's 'name or wildcard pattern' phrasing adds no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (select) and resource (nodes) plus the matching mechanism (name or wildcard pattern), which is enough to know what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_selection or list_objects, so a reader must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: the description never states that this changes the active selection, nor how it relates to get_selection (read the current selection) or list_objects. The agent must guess which of the selection-related siblings applies.

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