chatgpt_select_answer_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool validates the page display result after selection, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes associated with the selection action.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a scoping note and validation behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers the action, current limitation, and validation. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites or when to use it, but for a simple selection tool, this is sufficient.

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 parameter schema already provides a basic description, and the tool description adds the critical constraint that currently only the highest tier 'Pro' is supported. This goes beyond the schema by telling the agent which values are valid in practice, aiding correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool's function: selecting the capability tier next to the input box. It also specifies the supported tier ('Pro') and includes validation behavior, distinguishing it from sibling selection tools like chatgpt_select_mode and chatgpt_answer_tier_status.

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 implies the tool is used for selecting the answer tier but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Sibling tools like chatgpt_answer_tier_status suggest a status-check alternative, but no guidance is provided.

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