get_user_choice

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

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'opens a GUI dialog box' but omits critical details like blocking behavior, cancellation handling, timeouts, or return format. The agent gains little insight into the tool's runtime effects.

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 efficiently convey the purpose and typical use. No extraneous text, but front-loading could be improved by leading with the primary action.

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 interactivity (dialog), the description lacks expected details: blocking vs async, return value structure (confirmed by output schema existence), and cancellation behavior. This gap is significant for an agent deciding between this and siblings like show_confirmation_dialog.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'multiple options' echoes the allow_multiple parameter but adds no new constraints or format details beyond 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 clearly states the tool creates a choice dialog for user selection, specifying the verb 'Create' and resource 'choice dialog window'. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_user_input (text) and show_confirmation_dialog (yes/no) by focusing on multiple options.

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 says 'Perfect for getting decisions, preferences, or selections', giving broad context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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