pcb_get_selected

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is low. The description adds only the mild context that results are state-dependent (they track the live selection), and says nothing about empty-selection behavior or result size.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core noun phrase 'currently selected primitives' arrives immediately. Nothing in it is redundant for a tool of this shape.

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?

With five parameters, nested filter objects and no output schema, the definition leaves gaps: what counts as a 'primitive', what happens when nothing is selected, and how the returned array is shaped are all unstated. Annotations cover the safety side, but the retrieval contract is thin.

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 100% – document, instance_id, limit, fields and filter are all documented in the schema, including the strong warning to always supply 'fields'. The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('currently selected primitives in the PCB editor'), so the retrieval semantics are clear. It implicitly separates itself from pcb_get_all_primitives and pcb_get_primitives_in_region by the word 'selected', but it never names those siblings or makes the contrast explicit.

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?

The phrase 'currently selected' implies the prerequisite (something must be selected in the editor), but the description never states that, nor does it point to alternatives like pcb_clear_selection or the region/point-based getters. Usage is only weakly implied.

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