get_selected_project_items

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result reflects the user's live selection and is scoped to the 2019 Project panel, but says nothing about empty-selection behavior, blocking/failure modes, or whether the snapshot is stable.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and no explanation is buried.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what selection is returned and from which panel. The only modest gap is the absence of return-shape or empty-result expectations, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document beyond confirming it acts on the current selection, which it does.

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 (get) and resource (project items currently selected by the user), and scopes it to the Premiere Pro 2019 Project panel. This implicitly differentiates it from get_selected_timeline_clips, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so a reader must infer the distinction.

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 is only implied by the phrase 'currently selected by the user' — an agent can infer this is for reading the active selection. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of the alternative (get_selected_timeline_clips) for other selection sources.

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