get_project_panel_selection

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what happens when nothing is selected (empty list vs. error), whether a project must be open, or how multiple selections are represented.

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 short noun phrase with zero filler, and the scoping qualifier is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being slightly clipped but not padded.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only documentation, yet it never indicates the return shape (e.g., project item objects vs. names) or empty-state behavior. Adequate for a trivial zero-arg read, but with clear gaps.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter detail is missing because none exists.

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 names the specific resource (items currently selected) and its scope (the Project panel), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish it from ambiguous siblings such as get_selection or get_project_items, leaving room for mis-selection.

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?

Scope ('Project panel') implicitly signals that this reads bin/project-panel selection rather than timeline selection, which is a weak form of guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as get_selection.

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