get_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a non-mutating read, but this is never stated explicitly, and there is no mention of what happens when nothing is selected. It does at least disclose the returned shape (id + type), which is modest added value given an output schema already exists.

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 scope ('currently selected') and the return fields are stated in the fewest words possible.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and a zero-parameter read tool is inherently simple. The remaining gap is the absence of any edge-case note (e.g. empty selection) or linkage to the selection-manipulation siblings.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the parameter front.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the items currently selected in the PCB editor'), so the agent can immediately tell what the call does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as select_items and clear_selection, which is what would be needed for a 5.

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 when-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives like select_items or clear_selection, even though these tools read or manipulate the same selection state. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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