Ler Selection Basket

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens when the basket is empty, whether the returned list is sorted, or any other execution characteristics. Since it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure beyond annotations, and it adds essentially nothing, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It contains no fluff and conveys the essential purpose efficiently. This is an ideal example of appropriate brevity for a simple getter 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate—it states what is returned. However, it leaves minor gaps such as whether an empty basket returns an empty list, and it doesn't specify the format of GUIDs (e.g., as strings). With no output schema to fall back on, a bit more clarity would be helpful, but it is not severely incomplete.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no properties). According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, so this baseline is appropriate.

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 states that the tool returns the IFC GUIDs of components in the current Selection Basket, using a specific verb ('returns') and a resource ('components in the Selection Basket'). It is unambiguous and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like solibri_set_selection_basket or solibri_get_model_components, though the resource is unique enough that an agent could infer the difference.

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 merely states what it does without explaining the context (e.g., when you need the current selection vs. setting it, or vs. querying all model components). There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so an agent receives almost no direction on choosing this tool.

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