Ask Operator: Select

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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description still adds substantial behavior: ESC yields `cancelled: true`, a wait past `COM_CALL_TIMEOUT` yields `timed_out: true`, empty Enter in multiple mode is `count: 0` not a cancel, refusals for bad mode/empty prompt, and a `capability: "interactive_prompt"` failure when headless. This is exactly the edge-case disclosure an agent needs for an interactive tool.

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?

Information-dense and largely front-loaded, with each clause carrying operational meaning (timeouts, cancels, refusals). The opening sentence is a long run-on and some return-shape detail is redundant given an output schema exists, but little is truly wasted.

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 interactive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: modes, refusal causes, cancel/timeout semantics, capability gating, and coordinate-system behavior. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description earns extra credit by adding meaning beyond the schema: the picked point is in WCS and translated from the current UCS (so a UCS set by `ucs_set` won't shift it), and by elaborating what each mode returns.

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 states the core action ('returns `handles` the operator picked') and clearly separates the two modes (`single` vs `multiple`), so an agent can tell what it does. However, it front-loads return semantics rather than a clean purpose statement, and despite a close sibling (`user_pick_point`) it never explicitly differentiates itself from that or from `selection_get`.

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?

Usage is implied through the mode semantics and the refusal conditions, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance nor any routing against alternatives like `user_pick_point` or `selection_get`. The agent must infer that this is the interactive operator-driven path.

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