get_selected_objects

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns 'currently selected' objects, implying dynamic state, but does not disclose edge cases (empty selection, failure behavior, or whether it returns a list or a single object). The output schema likely covers return shape, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy. It states exactly what the tool delivers without 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?

An output schema exists (even if its details are not shown here), so the description need not detail return values. For a simple getter, the description conveys the essential purpose. However, it omits usage cues and does not explain how selection is defined within FreeCAD, which could be valuable given the many related tools.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no obligation to explain parameters. Baseline 4 applies because with no parameters, the description cannot add semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('selected objects'), and the qualifier 'selected' distinguishes it from siblings like get_objects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it doesn't fully preempt ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other object-querying tools such as get_objects or get_object_geometry. The description gives no context for the selection state or any prerequisites.

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