choose_from_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the wire tag, the re-targeting from captured_value to value, that no new SecondaryFrame is opened, the form replay from capture, the resulting user message, and confirmation on the wire. This is far more than a restatement of schema or name.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by dense technical context. The text is long but most sentences contribute behavioral or parameter meaning, with little obvious filler; the main cost is heavy parenthetical protocol detail.

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, absence of annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies strong behavioral and mechanistic context. It is slightly incomplete for the lowest-level parameters and usage selection, but it gives enough for an agent to understand the operation and call 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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for value, captured_value, base_command, and capture by explaining how they are replayed and re-targeted, but it does not explain host, port, or message_prefix, leaving part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: picking an item from a ПоказатьВыборИзМеню popup menu. It explicitly names and distinguishes itself from the sibling choose_from_list by calling the popup its wire twin, so an agent can differentiate them.

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 references the related alternative choose_from_list and explains the mechanical relationship, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus that sibling or other alternatives. Usage is implied by the popup-menu context rather than stated as a clear condition.

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