get_selection_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema: the response conditionally includes instance-only data (main component id, property definitions/values, slots). It does not state read-only status, side effects, or cost, but for a getter that bundles several reads the disclosed conditional behavior and bundling semantics are substantive.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and payload contents, the second front-loads the usage routing. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably sketches the return payload (compact node info plus instance extras), which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on how fields/maxDepth/excludeTypes shape the response, but the schema covers those mechanics.

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% and all four parameters (fields, verbose, maxDepth, excludeTypes) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description hints at the 'compact' default and mentions property/slot content but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (one-call bundle for the current selection) and enumerates exactly what is returned: layout-aware node info, main component id, property definitions/values, and slots. It explicitly names the sibling tools it consolidates, so an agent can distinguish it from get_selection, get_node_info, and get_component_property_definitions without opening any schema.

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 second sentence gives an explicit routing instruction: use this instead of chaining get_selection→get_node_info→get_component_property_definitions. That names the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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