ai_select

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says whether a new selection replaces or adds to the current one, what happens when a name or layer matches nothing, or whether it acts on the active document only. For a state-changing selection tool the description leaves the important behavior unstated.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource before enumerating modes; nothing is wasted. The dash-enumeration is dense but readable and appropriately sized for a 6-param tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have said what a selection returns (count, selected objects), and with 17% schema coverage the conditional param requirements are the main unmet need. The mode vocabulary is covered, which is the bulk of the complexity, so this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 17% (just the document param), so the description has to compensate, and it partly does by listing the type values (PathItem/TextFrame/PlacedItem/GroupItem) and the hex color form. It still omits the conditional relationship between mode and the remaining params (e.g. that 'names' is required for mode=names) and gives no format detail for names or layer.

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?

Names a specific verb (select) and resource (items) for Illustrator, and enumerates the six selection modes so the agent can immediately map intent to a mode. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like ai_modifyItems or ps_selection, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 mode list implies when each variant applies ('by names', 'by layer', 'by fill color hex'), so usage is inferable. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this differs from ai_modifyItems, and no stated prerequisites such as an open document.

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