pcb_get_selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds 'currently selected items', which clarifies the resource but does not describe return format, behavior when selection is empty, or any other context beyond what the annotations imply. This is adequate but not rich, consistent with a baseline of 3 when annotations cover the safety profile.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and immediately specifies the resource. Every word earns its place; there is no waste or redundancy.

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 simple no-parameter read-only getter with good annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the resource and action; no further context is needed. It compares well to the HIGH calibration example where a filtered-list tool with annotations received a 5.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. Per calibration, 0 params gives a baseline of 4; there is nothing for the description to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 'List currently selected items in the PCB editor' clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('currently selected items in the PCB editor'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific object types (e.g., pcb_get_nets, pcb_get_vias). The purpose is immediately apparent and 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as retrieving the current selection before operations like pcb_block_create_from_selection, nor does it contrast with other getters. The single sentence only states what it does, not when to use it.

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