Read current selection

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

Beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, it discloses important behavioral nuance: the returned 'coverage' value depends on whether the Tapir add-on is active, and without it selected markers, 2D elements, and native MEP routes are omitted, so an empty list is not conclusive.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core return value first, then adds the coverage caveat. It is dense but every part earns its place, with no 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values in general. It adds the key coverage caveat, but the optional 'port' parameter remains entirely undocumented.

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% and the description never mentions the single optional 'port' parameter, leaving its meaning and effect undocumented. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap on the only parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the GUIDs of the elements currently selected in Archicad.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like set_selection and clear_selection by focusing on reading the current selection rather than modifying it.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful (when the current selection is needed) and adds a usage caveat about empty lists not proving no selection, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as set_selection or clear_selection.

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