choose

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

Despite no annotations, the description details the UI card, button clicking, and the resulting 'I selected:' message format. It also mandates stopping after calling. It does not cover edge cases like option limits but is transparent for the main 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 front-loaded with purpose and is appropriately sized. It includes necessary usage details without excessive verbosity, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 simple nature of the tool and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is complete. It covers input, behavior, user interaction, and the required post-call waiting instruction.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 'Present the user with a set of options to choose from' and explains the interactive card with buttons. It distinguishes itself from sibling GitHub PR/issue tools by being a UI decision tool.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you need the user to make a decision between discrete alternatives' and instructs to call it proactively. Includes critical instruction to stop and wait. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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