editor_get_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not explain what the returned node selection looks like, whether it can be null/empty, or whether it reflects only the active editor viewport. The core behavior is stated, but the output format is left undefined.

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 one sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and no side-effect concerns. It would be more complete if it stated the returned value format in one clause, but the absence of inputs and the simple read-only nature make this largely sufficient.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond noting that no arguments are needed. The baseline of 4 applies because schema coverage is vacuously complete and no parameter semantics are required.

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 a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('currently selected node(s)'), and a context ('Godot editor'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like editor_get_scene_tree, which returns a scene tree, and editor_ping, which highlights something in the editor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as editor_get_scene_tree or read_scene. It does not mention prerequisites like an open scene, nor the kind of selection state needed for a useful call. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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