sch_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 elsewhere. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say the result is a live snapshot of editor state, that it can be empty, or what shape the returned primitives take.

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 efficient sentence with the key scope ('currently selected') front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally helpful.

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 read-only query whose annotations cover safety and whose schema fully documents all five parameters, the description is adequate but thin. It omits the relationship to sch_get_selected_ids and any hint about the return payload, which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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%, so every parameter (document, instance_id, limit, fields, filter) is already documented in the schema, including the auto-switch behavior of document and the instance_id requirement. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('get all currently selected primitives') plus the scope ('in the schematic editor'), which cleanly separates it from pcb_get_selected. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling sch_get_selected_ids, leaving the agent to guess which one returns what.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the near-duplicate sibling sch_get_selected_ids, and no statement of what happens when nothing is selected. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'currently'.

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