fgui_select_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this operation is non-destructive, how it affects prior selections, what happens if multiple objects match, or error behavior when no object is found. The minimal wording leaves these aspects opaque.

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 action and lists the three selection methods. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 3 optional parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations. A single sentence is insufficient to cover selection semantics (e.g., disambiguation, return behavior, or side effects). The tool is under-specified for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 description partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage by clarifying that object_id, object_name, and object_path are alternative means of selection ('or'). However, it does not specify whether they are mutually exclusive, their precedence, or expected format (e.g., full path vs. relative path). This adds some semantic value but leaves key details ambiguous.

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 the action ('select an object') and the resource (object), with three specific locator methods: ID, path, or unique name. This verb+resource pair is distinct from siblings like fgui_insert_object or fgui_remove_object, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open document), selection context, or why one locator method might be preferred over another. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

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