select_objects

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 reveals an important side effect: selecting new objects deselects others by default. However, it does not explain what happens when deselect_others is false, whether multiple criteria are combined additively or as alternatives, or how invalid or missing names are handled.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and selection modes, then adds the most important behavioral default. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for straightforward calls, but given zero annotations and zero schema parameter coverage, several important behaviors are missing: how criteria interact, the exact meaning of deselect_others=false, and the selection scope. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but the selection semantics remain underspecified for non-trivial use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It paraphrases names, pattern, and type, mapping roughly to the schema properties, but it never explicitly mentions deselect_others beyond the default behavior. It also fails to clarify the interaction between criteria when more than one is supplied, leaving significant semantic ambiguity.

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 action ('Select') on a specific resource ('objects') and lists three concrete selection criteria: name list, glob pattern, and type. It also adds the key behavioral detail 'Deselects others by default,' which clarifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_objects or list_objects, but the selection semantics are clear enough to avoid confusion.

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 about when to use select_objects versus alternatives such as find_objects or list_objects, nor any context about when this should be preferred. The only usage clue is implied by the verb and parameters. No exclusions or conditional advice are provided.

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