serp_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates selection-mode semantics and the special behavior of 'clear'. It could go further by explaining whether criteria combine with AND/OR, but the core behavioral traits are adequately disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action and criteria, and the second sentence provides essential mode information. Every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. The description covers all parameters and key behaviors, though it leaves some edge cases (e.g., whether multiple criteria are combined) undocumented. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a selection 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?

Schema property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It compensates well by explaining the meaning of 'kind' with the allowed values (curve/surface/solid) and clarifying mode behavior. It does not define the exact expected format for 'names' or the default behavior when 'mode' is omitted, but the overall parameter semantics are much clearer thanks to the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Select objects') and the criteria (names, kind, layer), which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinct from sibling tools like serp_create_curve or serp_boolean, focusing specifically on selection.

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 explains the mode parameter ('replace', 'add', 'clear') and highlights the non-obvious behavior that 'clear ignores other args', which is directly useful for invoking the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but no sibling tool is a selection tool, so the intended usage context is clear.

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