table_choose_field_from_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-sentence description only restates the action in the tool name ('Open the selection form') without revealing any side effects, permissions, state changes, or response behavior. It adds no value beyond the name and title, failing to disclose anything meaningful about the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is also under-specified. It lacks the structure needed to be useful: no parameter hints, no usage context, and no behavioral details. The brevity is not earned value; it is a sign of incompleteness rather than efficient content.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 2 required), lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does beyond the literal opening of a form, nor what parameters mean, what effects it has, or how it differs from siblings. The description is not complete enough to support correct invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (`table`, `field`, `session_id`, `search_by_title`). The description mentions 'a reference field' and 'a form table row', which vaguely map to `field` and `table`, but it adds no details about formats, defaults, or relationships. With zero parameter documentation, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 clear verb ('Open') and a specific resource ('selection form for a reference field in a form table row'). It differentiates from the generic sibling `choose_field_from_list` by adding the 'in a form table row' context, which helps an agent distinguish it. However, it does not explicitly name the distinguishing sibling or contrast with similar tools like `choose_field_first_row` or `table_set_field`, leaving some ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The only hint is the contextual phrase 'in a form table row', which implies a specific scenario but is not explicit. No alternative tools are named, so an agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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