get_selection_properties

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

Without annotations, the description effectively conveys behavioral traits: it is a read operation that returns app-specific data (cursor info or properties). It discloses the dependency on active connection and the differences between applications. It does not explicitly state side effects (likely none) but adequately covers key behaviors.

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 concise, using a few sentences and bullet points to convey key information efficiently. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well-organized for quick parsing by an agent.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the complexity is moderate (app-dependent behavior), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, app-specific details, and prerequisites. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description's context about connection requirement is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's invocation needs.

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 states the tool retrieves properties of the current selection in a connected score application. It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'selection properties', and differentiates behavior between MuseScore (cursor position) and Dorico/Sibelius (remote control properties), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 description provides clear context for use, noting that it requires an active connection and is the closest the WebSocket API gets to reading score data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like get_measure_content or read_passage, slightly reducing clarity for an agent choosing between siblings.

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