handleIntentChooser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Automatically handle' but doesn't specify what this entails—e.g., whether it interacts with UI elements, requires permissions, has side effects like closing dialogs, or handles errors. For a tool that likely involves system-level interactions, this lack of detail is a significant gap, making it hard for an agent to predict outcomes.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Automatically handle'), but could be slightly improved by specifying the outcome (e.g., 'dismiss' or 'select'). Overall, it's concise and well-structured, earning a high score for brevity.

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 complexity of handling system dialogs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like success/failure conditions, return values, or error handling. For a tool that interacts with system UI, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively, making this inadequate for the task's demands.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions and an enum for 'preference'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., that 'customAppPackage' is only relevant for 'custom' preference) or usage examples. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 states the tool 'Automatically handle system intent chooser dialog with specified preferences', which provides a verb ('handle') and resource ('system intent chooser dialog'). However, it's somewhat vague about what 'handle' means (e.g., dismiss, select, interact) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'detectIntentChooser' or 'openLink', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like when an intent chooser appears, prerequisites (e.g., after launching an app), or exclusions (e.g., not for web links). With siblings like 'detectIntentChooser' and 'openLink', there's no indication of how this tool fits into a workflow, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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