Get selection

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial value by fully specifying the return object structure (selectionType, total, editableCount, elements, marquee), which is critical since there is no output schema. It doesn't mention rate limits or permissions, but those are not relevant for a safe read operation.

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 front-loaded with the return shape and follows with usage guidance. It is dense but every part earns its place given the lack of an output schema. The single long sentence is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return structure. Annotations handle the safety profile, and the schema fully documents parameters. The only minor gap is that pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults) is only in the schema, not the description, but that is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (limit, offset, onlyEditable, includePartial, marqueeRelation, includeElementId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 and resource ('Returns what is currently selected in Archicad') and details the exact return shape. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_elements or set_selection, so it falls short of a 5 despite being very clear.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when the user refers to "the selected elements" or "this".' However, it gives no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, which would be needed for a 5.

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