get_selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations — the result is node names, not node objects or IDs, in the live session — but says nothing about what happens when the selection is empty or whether order is preserved. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short clause with no wasted words, front-loading the resource immediately. It is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which makes it terse to the point of reading like a field label rather than a statement of action.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema and read-only annotations, the definition covers the essentials: what is read and in what form (names from the live session). It is still thin on edge-case behavior, such as an empty selection or multi-selection ordering, which an agent may want to know before relying on the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not clutter the definition with redundant argument talk.

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 resource and scope: the names of nodes currently selected in the live Nuke session. An agent can tell this is a retrieval of the current selection rather than a node lookup or a mutation, though it never names the counterpart set_selection or otherwise differentiates among siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call before modifying or inspecting selected nodes, and must infer on its own to use get_node when full node details rather than names are needed.

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