ro_menu_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'choose an option' without mentioning that selecting advances the menu, possibly ends a dialog, or requires an active NPC interaction. Side effects and prerequisites are omitted.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and index semantics. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits prerequisites (e.g., an active NPC menu), what happens after selection, and any return value or side effects. The referencing of ro_talk_npc is the only contextual anchor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'index' has a description). The description adds no information about 'timeoutMs' and merely restates the zero-based indexing already present in the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 verb 'choose' and the resource 'option from the NPC's menu', and specifies the zero-based indexing. Though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ro_dialog_next, the parameter reference to ro_talk_npc ties it to a specific preceding action, so the purpose is effectively distinct.

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?

Usage context is implied by the parameter description ('options from ro_talk_npc') but not stated directly. The description does not mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ro_dialog_next) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer it should follow an NPC conversation.

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