geck_cell_select_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the selection action but does not explain side effects, whether it changes the current Cell View selection, how exact/double matching affects behavior, or what occurs on failure. It is not misleading, but it is behaviorally thin.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Important behavioral and parameter information is absent, so the brevity does not serve the agent's decision-making.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the tool has five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage in the description. The description is too sparse to let an agent confidently invoke the tool with the correct parameter values and selection mode.

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%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters. An agent gets no help understanding the expected format of 'query', the meaning of 'exact', 'column', 'double', or 'backend', and must rely entirely on parameter names and defaults.

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 verb and resource: 'Select a reference' in the 'currently selected Cell View object list.' This clearly identifies the operation and the target context, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like geck_cell_find_refs or geck_esp_list_refs.

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, nor any conditions such as required active context or prerequisites. It only vaguely implies 'currently selected' context, leaving an agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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