get_selected_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it reads the live UI selection, describes the geometry fields returned (bounding box, center, area/length, normal), and explains how the output feeds downstream tools. It stops short of stating read-only/no-side-effect guarantees or behavior when nothing is selected.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage rationale and return detail. No filler; every sentence adds actionable information.

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, yet the description still summarizes the return shape (entities list and count) and the per-entry geometry, plus how to consume the coordinates. Nothing an agent needs to call and use this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming it operates on the current UI selection, which it does implicitly.

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 ('Report the faces/edges/vertices currently selected in the live SolidWorks UI'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like select_face_edges and measure_entities. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context ('before applying a feature') with a concrete example ('chamfer the face I selected') and an explicit alternative it replaces ('instead of guessing from coordinates or a screenshot'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, keeping it just below a 5.

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