Select Project Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: it mutates only IDE selection state, not the project, and a nonexistent path errors by naming where the IDE actually is, which doubles as spell-check feedback. It does not spell out what the return payload contains beyond 'where the IDE landed and its type'.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it does, its error affordance, its selection-only scope, then the routing list and prerequisite. Dense but front-loaded and free of filler; only the enumerated sibling list runs long relative to a one-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, return shape, error behavior, state-mutation scope, prerequisite, and the exact sibling contexts it serves. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already carries the dot-separated path examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds failure semantics for the parameter (nonexistent path → error naming the current location) and echoes the path form, giving modest value beyond the schema.

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+resource+mechanism: selects an item in the Xojo IDE Navigator by dot-separated path, and returns where the IDE landed plus its type. It also distinguishes itself from the large sibling set by naming the tools that select their own location instead of relying on this one.

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 an explicit routing rule: tools that take a location select it themselves, so this is for those acting on the current item, with four named callers (get_selected_text, set_selected_text, analyze_project with scope 'item', create_project_item without parent_location). Prerequisite ('Xojo IDE running with the project open') is stated outright.

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