请求用户选择

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds that the tool is blocking, first option is default, and forbids sensitive data. No contradiction with annotations. Sufficient transparency for a read-only user input 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 three concise sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidelines, and security constraints. No wasted words.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers behavior (blocking, default, security) and return value (stable option IDs). It is complete enough for effective use, though a brief note on the response format would be helpful.

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 description should compensate. It mentions collecting structured choices (the 'questions' parameter) and default recommendation, but does not describe the 'message' parameter nor explain the individual fields in the questions array beyond what the schema provides. Adds some behavioral context but lacks parameter-specific details.

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 the tool's purpose: to request the client to collect structured choices and return stable option IDs. It specifies the number of choices (1-3), suitability for blocking decisions, and security constraints. This is specific and unambiguous, earning a 5.

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 provides clear usage guidelines: suitable for small, mutually exclusive, blocking decisions; first item default; prohibits sensitive data. It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the context is strong. With no sibling tools, this is effective.

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