pick_random

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the operation and return value but does not disclose randomness quality, edge case handling (e.g., empty list), or side effects. The description is minimally adequate for a simple tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single line plus structured Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input format and return value adequately. It could mention edge cases, but it is sufficient for typical usage.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'options' is a comma-separated list with an example ('pizza, burger, sushi'). This clarifies the format beyond the schema's type string.

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 'Pick a random option from a comma-separated list,' specifying the action (pick), resource (random option), and input format (comma-separated list). This distinguishes it from siblings like flip_coin or roll_dice, which involve specific randomization contexts.

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 implicitly tells when to use: when you have a comma-separated list to randomize. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases like empty lists or provide comparisons to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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