selectFromGroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly differentiates radio (single-select) from checkbox (multi-select with modes), and references analyzePage for option availability. It does not cover error handling or return values, but the core interactive behavior is clearly explained.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful context: group selection behavior, mode support, and reference to analyzePage for options.

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 has 7 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, group types, selection modes, and points to analyzePage for available options. It does not detail error handling or return values, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool in most scenarios.

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 adds value by explicitly mentioning 'name', 'value', and 'text' parameters and links to analyzePage for where options come from. This helps the agent understand source data for parameters without reading the schema alone.

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 verb 'select' and the resource 'radio or checkbox group' with a specific scope of 'by name attribute'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like selectOption by explicitly naming the group type, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is for radio/checkbox groups, explains radio vs. checkbox behavior, and directs users to analyzePage output for available options, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the group type implicitly excludes dropdowns.

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