npc_choose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no behavior on an out-of-range index, no indication of what happens to the dialog afterward, and no error semantics. The single disclosed trait is the 1-based indexing convention.

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 the key qualifier in parentheses and no wasted words. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 a tool embedded in a multi-step NPC dialog flow with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain how the index relates to the menu and what happens on success or failure. As written, an agent knows the verb but not the mechanics.

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% – the schema offers only a bare integer named 'choice'. The description partially compensates by specifying the indexing base ('1-based index'), which is genuinely useful, but it omits the valid range and how the index maps to the displayed options.

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 (choose) and resource (NPC menu option), which is clear enough to act on. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like npc_next or npc_input_int, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'menu option'.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus npc_next, npc_input_str, or npc_input_int, all of which operate in the same NPC dialog flow. The only hint is the phrase 'NPC menu option', leaving selection entirely to inference.

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