get_selection

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 correctly indicates this is a read operation via the verb 'Return', but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or requires any state. However, for a pure getter with no parameters, the lack of side-effect disclosure is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately states the action and the result, making it maximally efficient for an agent to parse.

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 getter with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call it correctly. The return format is presumably specified in the output schema, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 per the rubric. The schema coverage is 100% (empty), and the description adds no parameter information because none exist. No further compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('selected object names and active object'). It clearly distinguishes this as the read counterpart to the sibling set_selection, providing immediate semantic differentiation.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving selection state, which is evident from the verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is self-evident and no additional routing guidance is necessary for such a simple getter.

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