get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. "Return" implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is useful, but nothing is said about what happens when nothing is selected, whether the result is empty or an error, or what coordinate space/units bbox uses. Partial behavioral coverage only.

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 operation and its return contents are conveyed immediately with zero 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values in depth, and for a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the undefined empty/no-selection behavior, which slightly under-specifies an otherwise simple 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the field names it lists belong to the return value rather than to inputs.

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?

"Return the currently selected entities" states a specific verb (return) and resource (current selection), with the returned fields (entityID, typename, bbox) named inline. The sibling tools (eval_ruby, get_scene_info, screenshot) are so different that no explicit differentiation is needed, though the description never actually mentions them.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or state condition (e.g. "requires an active selection"). The read-a-selection use case is only implied by the word "selected"; an agent gets no explicit routing guidance.

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