choose_current_row

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, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose what 'choose' does mechanically, whether it waits for a dialog, how it behaves if no row is current, or what side effects occur. The expected_text parameter hints at verification behavior that is never 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 a single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than from trimming excess.

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 with 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, a one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what form to target, what expected_text is for, what a successful invocation looks like, or what conditions must hold before calling it.

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 for the undocumented parameters, and it does not. Neither name, session_id, nor expected_text is explained; the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and defaults already present in 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 states a recognizable verb ('Choose') and a specific resource ('the current row in the active selection/list form'), so an agent can grasp the core operation. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings such as choose_field_first_row or table_choose_field_from_list, and 'choose' is ambiguous between selecting and confirming a row.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a selection dialog must be active), conditions, or exclusion cases, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right call among many row-related siblings.

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