Select by Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains that using named parameters avoids ambiguous empty results from mistyped query strings and that `filtered_by` reports which filters actually ran. This gives the agent insight into error semantics and output behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the operation and resource, and the second paragraph adds a focused rationale about design choices and result reporting. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

Given the full parameter schema, the output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers the core behavior, the rationale for named parameters, potential empty-result ambiguity, and how to know which filters ran, leaving no significant gaps for a property-selection tool.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a concise description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance by explaining why named parameters are deliberately used and what `filtered_by` signals, which helps the agent interpret results correctly without re-documenting each parameter.

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 defines the tool as 'filter the drawing by properties' and explicitly references AutoCAD's QSELECT, making the purpose concrete and specific. This clearly differentiates it from geometric selection tools like selection_window and selection_polygon, and from single-property selectors like analysis_select_by_layer.

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 sets clear context for property-based filtering and explains why named parameters are used, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the QSELECT reference and property-focused framing make the intended use clear enough.

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