get_selected_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: 'Side effects: none' declares the safety profile, and the edge-case note (absent selections return null or index -1) is exactly the kind of return-value behavior an agent needs. It doesn't describe output shape, but the empty input schema and no-param nature limit what else is required.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then side effects and edge cases. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Example:' framing adds little beyond restating the call signature.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and edge cases, but the absence of any output shape or field list is a gap since there is no output schema to fall back on, and it should say which ids/values are returned.

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?

Zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed; the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is driven entirely by the current selection rather than arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reads the currently selected track, scene, and device. This is clearer than the generic sibling names (e.g. get_track_state, get_scene_state), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is preferable to get_scene_state/get_device_list for retrieving the same objects.

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