editor_get_selection

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

The "live Flax Editor" phrasing usefully signals that this reflects interactive editor state rather than a scene file, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. However, it says nothing about behavior when no editor is connected or when the selection is empty, which is the main failure mode for a live-state query. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this lands at an adequate 3.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 output schema presumably documents the returned actor list, so return-value detail is not required here. For a zero-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient, with the only real gap being disconnected-editor behavior.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; a note about whether the selection can span multiple actors would have pushed it higher.

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 names a specific verb ("Returns") and a precise resource ("the actors currently selected in the live Flax Editor"), so there is no ambiguity about what is retrieved. The read-vs-write split with the sibling editor_set_selection is easy to infer from the wording, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can reason that this is the read counterpart to editor_set_selection, but the description states no when-to-use condition and no alternative. There is no mention of the prerequisite that the editor must be running, which is the main thing that would govern calling this versus a scene tool.

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