select_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'optionally show them in the Inspector' but fails to disclose the semantics of selection modes (replace/add/remove), what happens to the existing selection, or the effect of the focus parameter. The tool mutates editor state, but no side effects or prerequisites are stated.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, for a tool with this parameter complexity, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness, so it does not earn a 5.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It states the basic purpose but omits all parameter behavior, selection mode semantics, and the relationship to sibling selection tools. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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, but it only vaguely hints at inspect-related behavior. The parameter names (mode, focus, node_path, node_paths, for_property, inspector_only) are left entirely to inference. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool where mode, for_property, and inspector_only have non-obvious semantics.

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 identifies the action (select nodes), the target resource (editor scene tree), and an optional behavior (show in Inspector). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_editor_selection and clear_editor_selection, though it does not mention the selection modes (replace/add/remove) which are part of the schema.

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 versus alternatives such as get_editor_selection for reading the current selection or clear_editor_selection for deselecting. There is also no explanation of how the mode parameter affects usage, leaving the agent without context for selecting the right tool.

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