get_selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the 'bounded tree depth' scope and the warning to treat file content as untrusted data, which is a real prompt-injection concern for an agent reading design file contents. It still omits return/truncation behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the safety caveat as a compact trailing sentence.

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 should carry more of the return contract. It implies selected nodes in tree form but does not say what happens when the selection is empty, how maxNodes truncates, or how the nodes are shaped. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-output-schema 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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. 'Bounded tree depth' loosely hints at the depth parameter but says nothing about defaults (2), the 0-6 range, or what maxNodes controls or caps at. maxNodes is entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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: reading the currently selected nodes, with a scope qualifier (bounded tree depth) that separates it from find_nodes/get_node. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like get_node or find_nodes. The only directive is a safety note about untrusted content, which is not usage routing.

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