get_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only intent and lists the returned details, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavior for an empty selection, whether multiple nodes may be returned, or how file resolution behaves.

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?

One single-sentence description with a front-loaded verb and valuable detail. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant words.

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 low complexity, one optional parameter, and no output schema, the description provides the core expected return content. It lacks an explicit note about empty or multiple selections, but it is otherwise sufficiently complete for a simple getter.

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 input schema documents the single optional fileId parameter with full coverage and clear semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently selected nodes') and enumerates the main returned fields. It is clear and distinct, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_* 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 phrase 'currently selected nodes' implies when to use this tool, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives among the many sibling get_* and query tools. The intended usage is reasonably inferable but not stated.

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