build_show_choices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Read-only' and specifies the return shape '{ commands }'. It also warns about branch termination details, giving agents the structural knowledge needed to predict output.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, structure, usage pointer, and return info. No filler; the information is front-loaded.

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 an 8-param builder with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential missing pieces: the block's internal structure, insertion workflow, and return value. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-reference value by explaining the `branches` parameter can come from build_show_text and that each branch is an EventCommand[], reinforcing the relationship. This is a modest enhancement over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Build') and names a distinct resource ('Show Choices block'), then enumerates the exact command structure (102, 402, 403, 404), differentiating it from sibling builders like build_show_text and build_conditional_branch.

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 states this block is 'for insertion via insert_event_commands' and suggests using build_show_text to create branch bodies, offering concrete workflow context. It doesn't list when-not scenarios, but the usage context is unambiguous within the tool family.

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