Renforge Select Choice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this requires the game to be in a specific state, whether the project_path must point to an active session, what happens on failure, or if the action is reversible. Only the selection mode is disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and clarifies the selection modes with a clear preference. No wasted 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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations. It omits any behavioral context such as required session state, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like renforge_list_choices.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'text' is the visible text of the choice and 'index' is an alternative selector, which adds some meaning. However, it doesn't clarify the default values (-1 for index means unset), nor does it explain what project_path refers to, leaving a key parameter completely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('a menu choice'), and clarifies the two selection modes (visible text preferred, or index). It distinguishes itself from siblings like renforge_list_choices and renforge_click_element, though the 'Renforge' context isn't explained.

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 parenthetical '(preferred)' hints that text is preferable to index, which is implicit usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus renforge_list_choices or renforge_click_element, nor any prerequisites or conditions.

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