geck_cell_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, whether an existing selection is replaced, whether Cell View needs to be focused or opened, or any state changes. The minimal sentence only states the basic operation.

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. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does, and the core selection key is included immediately.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain the matching behavior, the meaning of world_space for exterior cells, or the consequences of using this tool. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that editor_id is the lookup key ('by Editor ID'). The other four parameters—exact, double, backend, and world_space—are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 states a specific action ('Select'), a specific resource ('interior/exterior cell'), a UI context ('Cell View'), and the selection key ('Editor ID'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like geck_cell_select_ref, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The description implies that the tool is for selecting a cell by Editor ID, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., Cell View must be open), and no exclusions. An agent is left to infer the selection criteria from the name and sibling context.

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