map_get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does add useful behavioral context by specifying the result shape and clarifying that nodeId is a legacy alias for nodeIds[0], including possible null values. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or mention edge cases like no selection existing beyond the null values.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and then provides the result shape. Every element contributes value with no wasted words.

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 simple no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the exact return shape, including types and null possibilities. It covers everything a caller needs to know to use the result correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value instead.

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 tool returns currently selected node/sticky ids and connection id, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like map_get_state or map_select because it explicitly mentions the selection retrieval and provides the exact result shape.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or alternative tools. For example, it does not clarify whether map_get_state also includes selection info or when one should prefer this tool.

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