get_editor_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Gets' and 'requires open editor', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens with no editor open) or the format of the returned selection. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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?

For a simple parameterless getter, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return value structure and error handling. Since there's no output schema, the agent must infer behavior. This is slightly under-specified but acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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 an empty schema. With no parameters, there's nothing for the description to add beyond the schema; the baseline of 4 applies as no compensation is needed.

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 'Gets' and resource 'current editor selection'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the name is self-explanatory and the action is clear. It's unambiguous about what it retrieves.

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 notes a prerequisite ('requires open editor'), giving some usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_open_scenes or find_nodes, nor any exclusions. The condition is useful but incomplete.

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