choose_from_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the wire-level protocol (choose tag 'e0 4b 53' + length-prefixed value), that no new SecondaryFrame needs binding because the popup reuses the window, and that commit is verified by scanning responses for the ASCII marker Сообщить(...). This is rich context beyond a bare mutation claim.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the single paragraph is dense, backtick-heavy and jargon-laden, interleaving protocol bytes, flow steps and verification logic. It is information-rich yet difficult to parse, so efficiency is only moderate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, yet the description still notes the result shape ({captured_value, value, accepted, committed, message}). Combined with the flow, commit-verification mechanism and parameter roles, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains value (list-item VALUE NAME), base_command (the command that raises the choice list), captured_value/capture (the genuine setup replayed to open the form) and message_prefix (used in the verification marker), plus their interrelations. Only host/port go unexplained.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Pick a value from a ПоказатьВыборИзСписка modal.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling set_choice by noting it uses the same 'e0 4b 53' family but is addressed at the FORM rather than a radio. The Russian modal name adds jargon but the action is still identifiable.

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 lays out the required flow (open the form, click base_command, then pick value), which implies when the tool applies. However it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like choose_from_menu or set_choice, nor any precondition/exclusion. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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