Ui (read)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data and "no side effects" largely restates it. The description adds only the mild note that results can be used to find ids and verify outcomes; it says nothing about whether the menu structure is live/current or what a menu item looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the safety note, then a compact per-action parameter list. The "op.action (params; * = required)" notation is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single action plus its parameter is fully covered. The remaining gap is procedural: an agent must infer that other UI capabilities live in ui_write or describe_action rather than being routed there explicitly.

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 100% so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: the generic op wrapper only documents "{action, ...params}", while the description names the per-action parameter path and explains that an empty path returns the top-level menu bar. That is real semantics the schema does not supply.

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 ("Read ui state") and immediately enumerates the one supported action, list_menu_items, so an agent knows exactly what the tool can do. It never names the sibling ui_write/ui_delete as the write alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"use it to find ids and check results" gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. ui_write or when-not, and no prerequisite or fallback guidance. Usage must be inferred from the single enumerated action.

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