get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (the current selection) and gives a use case, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens when nothing is selected, or the structure of the returned data. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the core function. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description does not explain the return format or edge cases like empty selections. Without an output schema, the description should compensate by specifying what kind of data to expect, which is missing. The purpose and use case are clear, but operational completeness is lacking.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail since there are none. The mention of 'in the KiCad GUI' provides useful context but is not parameter-related.

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: returning what the user currently has selected in the KiCad GUI. It uses a specific resource ('selection in KiCad GUI') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list specific object types (tracks, zones, symbols) by focusing on the current selection.

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 explicit use-case guidance: 'Use this to act on "the thing I'm looking at".' This clearly implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this over listing tools when the user references their current selection.

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