choose

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what happens on an out-of-range index, whether the choice is committed immediately or irreversibly, or what the tool returns. It only conveys the one detail that indexing is 0-based, which is helpful but far from complete for a state-mutating selection 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical examples are compact and useful. The phrasing 'choice_list/screen option' is slightly loose but does not cost readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core act of choosing by index is covered. However, with no annotations the description should still address irreversibility and sequencing relative to get_decision_pack/get_game_state, which it omits.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the parameter as an unadorned integer. The description adds the critical detail that indexing starts at 0 and indicates the kinds of option lists it addresses, which is meaningful compensation, but it stops short of saying how the index maps to entries in choice_list.

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?

States a specific verb ('Pick') and resource ('choice_list/screen option') with a clear key detail (0-based index) and concrete contexts (events, map nodes, Neow, card rewards). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with 'confirm'/'cancel', which likely operate on a different selection mechanism.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite several siblings (confirm, cancel, proceed, play_card) that plausibly overlap. The enumerated contexts (events, map nodes, Neow, card rewards) only imply when it applies.

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