femm_select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the return behavior ('what FEMM reports for each pick... coordinates of the selected object'). But it omits meaningful traits: clear_first defaults to true (i.e. prior selection is wiped), session targeting, and what happens on an empty or failed pick. Useful but incomplete for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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?

Purpose and downstream consumers are front-loaded, then the kind modes are laid out compactly with arrows and inline formats. The density is justified by the number of undocumented parameters, though the shorthand listing style is slightly terse.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does solid work on selection modes and return values. It leaves clear_first and session unexplained, however, and clear_first in particular changes whether a call is additive or destructive — a notable omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates kind's five modes with their distinct behaviors, explains points/group/rectangle/circle shapes and the entities filter. Only session and clear_first go undocumented, which is a modest gap against strong overall coverage.

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 and resource ('Select objects') and immediately scopes it to its role as a precursor to edits, naming the exact consumer siblings (femm_move_selected, femm_delete_selected, femm_set_group). An agent can place it in the workflow without opening any other definition.

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?

It clearly establishes the context of use — building a selection that subsequent edit tools operate on — and lists the downstream alternatives. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over the sibling femm_select_block, nor any exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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