做选择

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It details what happens upon selection (settlement text, automatic transitions, next decision point), which is valuable. It doesn't mention state persistence or irreversibility, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the action and its results. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and packs necessary detail without 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and the flow, including automatic transitions. It could elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already thoroughly describes the 'index' parameter, including its meaning and starting value. The description adds a small clarification by linking it to 'look', but this is marginal given the high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: making a choice based on an index from 'look'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'look' (which provides options) and 'start' (which initiates).

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?

It explicitly references using the index from 'look', indicating when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'shop' or 'codex', though the intended workflow is clear.

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