get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents (active glyph name, layer, selected paths/nodes), the null edge case, and implicitly indicates a read-only operation through the verb 'Get'. It does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, but this is strongly implied and the key edge case is covered.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by return details and the null condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it returns and when it returns null. No missing prerequisites, options, or edge cases are relevant. The lack of an output schema is compensated by naming the returned fields directly.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning or formats. Baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('the user's current selection in GlyphsApp's editor') and specifies what is returned (glyph name, layer, selected paths/nodes). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_glyph or get_font_info, which fetch stored data rather than the live editor 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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent would use this when it needs the current selection. However, the description does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. The null-return condition ('if no tab or layer is active') provides some situational context but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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