get_selectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies this is a read-only operation ('View') and explains the merge behavior of defaults with overrides. However, it doesn't disclose output format or error behavior, though the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more detail.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and packs the useful context about merging in a compact way.

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 simple getter with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned (the active selectors) and adds the merge nuance. It doesn't explicitly specify the return format, but that is likely clear from context and not critical for such a basic tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information because there are no parameters to describe.

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 uses the clear verb 'View' with a specific resource ('currently active selectors') and explains the merge semantics, making its function distinct from siblings like discover_selectors or apply_selectors. It could have explicitly named alternatives, but the action of viewing active selectors is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to inspect the effective selector configuration, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like discover_selectors or apply_selectors. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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