get_selected_items

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It does detail the return structure with property names, which is helpful, but it does not explain the 'status' field, behavior when no items are selected, or any side effects. This leaves notable gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured: a single clear sentence stating the purpose, followed by a useful list of return fields. Every part adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple getter: it fully specifies the return structure and properties. However, it omits context about the 'status' field and edge cases like an empty selection, and it does not mention any prerequisites or state, so it is not a 5.

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 the schema already provides complete parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 that the tool retrieves all selected media items along with their properties. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_selected_midi_item' by covering all media items, not just MIDI, and from 'get_items_in_time_range' by focusing on selection rather than time range.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_selected_midi_item' or 'get_items_in_time_range'. The intended use is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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