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 merely states the purpose without explaining the return format (e.g., element IDs, objects), potential side effects, or that it is a read-only operation. The lack of any detail beyond the one-line purpose leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey the return value. While 'Get the elements' conveys the concept, it does not specify the data format (e.g., list of IDs, references). This is adequate but leaves a notable gap about what the agent will receive.

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 and an empty schema (100% coverage). With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information; it correctly focuses on the tool's action.

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 specifies the action (get) and resource (currently selected elements in the Revit window). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_selection (which modifies selection) and get_categories (which retrieves categories, not 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 implies usage: call this when you need the current selection in Revit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_elements for broader element retrieval. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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