get_selection

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about what the selection may contain (footprints, tracks, vias), but does not disclose behavior for an empty selection or whether the result is a list. The output schema exists, so return format is partly handled by structured data, but the description doesn't add much beyond the annotation.

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 immediately states the tool's core purpose and gives a concrete usage example. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only getter with an output schema, the description covers the main use case and selection content. The main gap is the undocumented 'path' parameter, which slightly detracts from completeness but is not critical for typical usage.

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 only parameter is 'path', which has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the tool description. The agent has no idea what 'path' refers to (e.g., a document path, a layer path, or something else). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.

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 states a clear purpose: retrieve the user's current selection in the PCB editor, listing example element types (footprints, tracks, vias). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_components (which sets selection) and items_in_region (which queries by geometry).

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Useful when they say "this part" or "these tracks"', which tells an agent when to invoke this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger is specific enough for most cases.

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