Select Features

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

The annotation 'idempotentHint: true' is present, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not disclose whether selection replaces existing selection, whether the tool modifies data, or what happens on invalid input. For a tool that likely mutates state (selection), more transparency is needed.

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 sentence with no fluff, directly stating the action and methods. It is structured effectively for quick parsing, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 lack of output schema and minimal description, the tool's completeness is insufficient. The agent is not informed about return values, error handling, or what constitutes a valid expression/FIDs. In the context of sibling tools like 'get_selection', the description should clarify how selection state changes.

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. It mentions 'by expression or feature IDs' but does not explain the format of the expression parameter or the fids array, nor does it clarify the relationship between these parameters. The agent is left to guess parameter semantics from the schema alone, which lacks descriptions.

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 the verb 'select' and resource 'features in a layer', and specifies two methods 'by expression or feature IDs'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'clear_selection' or 'get_selection', though it does not clarify whether selection replaces or adds to existing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'clear_selection' or 'get_selection', nor are there prerequisites or caveats about selection behavior (e.g., whether it clears previous selection). The agent must infer the context from the tool name alone.

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