plasticity_current_selection

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

Annotations already declare a safe, non-destructive, non-open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully extends this by enumerating what entity categories are returned, which is the main added value, but it says nothing about ordering, empty-selection behavior, or how the result is structured.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, with the entity list following. Every element earns its place; the only mild cost is the long enumeration, which is nonetheless informative rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so by listing the returned entity types. It stops short of describing result structure or the empty-selection case, but for a read-only, zero-parameter tool it is close to sufficient.

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 schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a well-scoped resource ('...currently selected by the user'), then enumerates the entity kinds involved (bodies, instances, reference meshes, groups, faces, edges, regions, Wire handles). It is distinctly different from sibling list_*/select_* tools in intent, but it never names a sibling to contrast against, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'currently selected by the user' implies the operating context (inspect the live CAD selection) but gives no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternative tools such as plasticity_select_bodies or plasticity_list_bodies. An agent can infer the intent but must guess at the boundary cases.

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