geck_object_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 reveals only that the tool may select or open a record, but it does not explain matching behavior, side effects on the Object Window UI, backend selection, or what 'double' does despite the presence of these behavioral parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity leaves out important behavioral and parameter details.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and a sibling set with many related selection tools, the description is too sparse to provide complete guidance. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing parameter semantics or usage 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, but it only clarifies the editor_id parameter. The exact, double, and backend parameters remain unexplained, and the phrase 'optionally open' only weakly hints at the double parameter without specifying its role.

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 clear action ('Select or optionally open') on a specific resource ('current Object Window record') and identifies the lookup key ('by Editor ID'). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from at least some siblings like geck_cell_select_ref, though it does not explicitly delineate all sibling relationships.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geck_object_filter or geck_cell_select_ref. The intended use is only implied by the action and resource, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when 'optionally open' should be chosen.

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