get_selected_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not disclose behavior such as whether an empty selection returns an empty list or null, whether the active object may be included in the selection list, or whether any errors occur for missing state. This is minimal information for a state getter.

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 extremely short and to the point, with no filler words. However, it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which makes it slightly less polished. The structure is acceptable for a zero-parameter getter, but a complete sentence like 'Returns the currently selected objects and the active object.' would be clearer.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value and any relevant context. It mentions both the selection and the active object, which is the core content. However, it lacks detail on the format (e.g., object names, IDs), edge cases (no selection, no active object), and how this differs from get_active_object. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It still correctly indicates the tool operates on the current scene state without requiring input.

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 phrase 'The current selection and the active object.' clearly identifies the resource and scope of the tool: it returns both the current selection and the active object. This differentiates it from the sibling get_active_object, which presumably returns only the active object. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, which is a minor clarity gap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_active_object, get_object, or list_objects. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool. The only implied usage is that it is a read operation, which is insufficient.

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