list_named_selections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers almost nothing beyond the return contents. It does not state that this is a safe read-only operation, whether a model/connection must already be open, or whether an empty list is returned when no selections exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return contents are mentioned immediately. It is efficient, though brief enough that it omits context a lone sentence could easily have carried.

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?

With a zero-parameter signature and an output schema present, the return values do not need explaining, so the description is close to adequate for a simple listing tool. The missing pieces are behavioral: no annotation coverage means the read-only nature and any connection prerequisite go entirely unstated.

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, which is the stated baseline of 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument listing operation with nothing to configure.

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 ('List all named selections') and even names the payload ('face/body counts'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the other 'list_*' siblings (list_materials, list_point_masses, list_boundary_conditions), though the resource noun 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active Mechanical connection. The only implied usage is the verb 'List' itself, which is minimal.

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