Select by Window

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: corners accept any order, selection uses drawn position (with a mirror example), and zero-area boxes are refused rather than returning an empty list. These details add meaningful context about edge cases and coordinate interpretation, exceeding what annotations alone convey.

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 – three sentences – and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence contributes unique information: the first defines the tool, the second explains coordinate interpretation with a concrete example, and the third defines an edge case. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 7 parameters, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects effectively. It explains the main selection mode, corner order, and zero-area handling. It does not mention return format or integration with the selection set, but the output schema likely handles that. Slight gap remains in not discussing how filters (layer/entity_type) interact with the selection, though these are documented in the schema. Overall, the description is well-rounded for the tool's complexity.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds semantic value beyond the schema. It clarifies that corners may be given in any order (so x1,y1 is not necessarily top-left), and it explains the zero-area rejection behavior. The mode parameter is not detailed in the description, but the schema covers it adequately. The description supplements, not merely restates, 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as AutoCAD's ssget window/crossing selection, specifying the core action (select entities by a rectangular window) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like selection_polygon or selection_filter. The phrase 'window/crossing selection' uses a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like selection_polygon or selection_filter. It does not state use cases, exclusions, or preferences. Usage is only implied by the name and purpose, but the description does not compare it to siblings or mention when not to use it.

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