choose_execution_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it explicitly states the tool does not persist session state, does not access a remote host, and does not start a render. That is real behavioral disclosure of side effects an agent would otherwise fear. It stops short of saying whether competing calls or repeated calls are safe.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the caller prerequisite then the non-effects. Every sentence carries information; only the stray double-backtick formatting is noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single required parameter is covered. For a one-parameter guidance tool this is close to sufficient; the only missing piece is what the two modes imply for downstream steps.

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 0% and the `mode` property has no enum, so the schema alone leaves the value space open. The description compensates by constraining `mode` to `local` or `remote`, which is the single most important semantic for this call. It does not explain what differs between the two modes, so it is not a 5.

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 action (return guidance) tied to a named input (the user's selected execution mode), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling tool, but the purpose is clear enough to route on.

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 caller must ask the user first" is an explicit usage prerequisite, which is the key gating condition for this tool. No alternative tools are named and there is no when-not guidance, but the ordering constraint is unambiguous.

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