select_by_superclass

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which is important context. The description itself does not add behavioral details beyond the selection action—it doesn't mention whether the current selection is replaced, whether hidden/frozen objects are affected, or any side effects. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them with additional behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded with the key information. The bilingual format (Chinese and English) is slightly redundant but serves a clear purpose for the tool's likely user base. The examples are useful and the structure is efficient.

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 selection tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention whether the selection replaces or adds to the current selection, how to specify multiple superclasses, or what happens with nested/child objects. The destructiveHint annotation flags risk, but the description doesn't clarify the exact scope of the destructive action.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (superClass and its alias type). The description adds examples of valid superclass values (Shape, Light) but doesn't explain the relationship between 'type' and 'superClass' beyond what the schema says. The description adds marginal value but the schema carries the main burden.

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's function: selecting all objects by superclass, with concrete examples (Shape selects all splines, Light selects all lights). It uses a specific verb ('select') and resource ('superclass'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like select_all, select_objects, or find_objects, though the superclass-based selection is implied as the differentiator.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to select all objects of a given superclass. It provides examples of superclass values (Shape, Light) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like select_objects or find_objects. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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