Choose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the card UI with one button per option, explains that the user's selection appears as an 'I selected:' message, and warns the agent not to continue until that message appears.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, the usage guidance is direct, and the behavioral example and blocking warning are necessary for correct invocation. It is detailed but not padded.

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?

The description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly: what it does, when to use it, what the user sees, how the response arrives, and what to do afterward. The reference to github_get_skill('interactive-ui') provides a path for deeper workflow context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though the example prompt and option behavior are consistent with 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 specific verb and resource: 'Present the user with a set of options to choose from.' It is clearly distinguished from the GitHub sibling tools by framing this as an interactive user-decision tool, not a repository operation.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool ('when you need the user to make a decision between discrete alternatives') and gives an alternative to avoid ('don't ask the user to type their choice in chat'). It also adds the critical after-call instruction to stop and wait for the user's response.

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