get_selection

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only operation with openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful scope context by stating that it covers both the active timeline and the project bin, which is not captured by annotations. It does not describe edge cases like empty selections, but that is partly covered by the output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to distinguishing what selection context is captured.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It identifies both scopes of selection, and the output schema can explain the return structure. A minor gap is that it does not clarify whether timeline and bin selections are returned together or separately.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 resource being read: the current selection in both the active timeline and project bin. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like set_selection or open_in_timeline.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, when not to call it, or how it relates to alternatives such as set_selection or get_clip. Usage is only implied by the description of what is returned.

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