Select By Name

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (modifies selection) and is idempotent. The description adds that it clears the previous selection first, which is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 very concise: two sentences plus parameter bullet points. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently provides all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It does not mention edge cases like no match, but that is acceptable for a straightforward selection tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies that 'name' is a substring match by default and 'exact' can enforce exact match. This adds slight nuance over the schema descriptions, but the schema already conveys the core meaning.

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 'Select objects by their name', which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling selection tools like illustrator_select_all and illustrator_get_selection by specifying the selection criterion (name).

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 notes that it clears previous selection, which is a behavioral guideline, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like illustrator_select_all or illustrator_deselect_all. The context is implied but not fully explicit.

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