select_objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important behavior: 'Deselects others by default.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as clearing the current selection, what happens when no criteria match, or whether the operation is reversible. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, each delivering key information: the selection methods and the default deselect behavior. It is front-loaded and free of filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

This is a simple tool with four optional parameters and an output schema (as per context). The description covers the primary behavior (selection and default deselect) and the input methods. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. Minor gaps remain around edge cases, but for a basic selection tool, the description is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does conceptually map to the parameters: 'name list' refers to names, 'glob pattern' to pattern, 'type' to type, and 'Deselects others by default' to deselect_others. However, it does not explain details like how multiple criteria interact, precedence, or accepted formats (e.g., exact glob syntax). It provides some context but not full semantics.

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 the tool's function: 'Select objects by name list, glob pattern, or type.' It uses a specific verb ('select') and defines the resource (objects) and the selection criteria. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_objects (which lists) and find_objects (which searches), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer selection over listing or finding, nor does it exclude scenarios. There is no explicit mention of alternatives or context-specific recommendations, so the agent is left to infer usage.

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