cubism_get_selected

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a list of IDs from the Editor selection, implying a read-only query. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., empty selection), permissions, or side effects. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 very concise—two sentences covering purpose and parameter. It is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence is useful, but the structure could be improved by separating the parameter description more clearly.

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 the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks usage examples, error handling notes, or contextual cues for the Editor state. It is minimally complete for a simple getter but leaves gaps for confident invocation.

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 adds minimal explanation for the parameter 'model_uid' (Chinese: '模型 UID'). This provides a basic semantic cue beyond the schema's title, but it does not specify the UID's source or format. The added value is marginal.

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 states it gets the list of object IDs currently selected in the Editor. The verb '获取' (get) and resource 'selected object IDs' are specific. Among siblings, it uniquely targets the selection state, differentiating it from other getters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The description simply states functionality without comparative or contextual advice.

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