blender_mesh_get_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states the non-destructive nature ('without modifying it') and what the call returns. It omits secondary behaviors like handling of empty selections or edit-mode prerequisites, but the essential safety and output contract are clear.

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 with zero wasted words: the action and the critical non-mutation qualifier are front-loaded, and the second sentence precisely states the return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only query tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core contract: purpose, safety, and return content. Missing details are minor edge cases (empty selection behavior, edit-mode prerequisites, exact response shape absent an output schema), so it is nearly complete but not exhaustive.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds modest value by mapping the mode enum to return types (vertices/edges/faces), but it doesn't explain syntax, defaults, or mode-specific behavior beyond what the schema states, landing at the high-coverage baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') with a clear resource ('current mesh selection state') and specifies the return content (indices of vertices, edges, or faces). The 'without modifying it' clause sharply distinguishes this from mutating siblings like blender_mesh_select, so an agent can differentiate it from the many selection-related tools.

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 'without modifying it' phrasing establishes a clear read-vs-write context that tells an agent when to reach for this tool rather than a selection mutation tool. However, it never names an alternative explicitly or states a when-not-to-use condition, so the guidance stops short of being fully explicit.

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