get_selection

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'full context', which is undefined. It does not describe the response shape, what happens when nothing is selected, or how the includeX flags change the payload beyond what the schema already states.

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 key concept (selected sketches) appears early. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but nothing is wasted.

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 data-returning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should sketch what 'full context' includes and the empty-selection case. It leaves the return value and edge behavior entirely unspecified.

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 three optional boolean flags with their defaults are already documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full context for the currently selected sketch(es)'), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as 'get_editor_state' or '_get_sketch_data', leaving an agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'currently selected' – the agent can infer this is a read of the current selection. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite ('a selection must exist'), and no named alternative when the selection is empty or when editor-wide state is wanted.

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