ui_list_menus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: results are scoped to this installation's XUI, and returned entries are descriptive rather than guaranteed-live actions, which is a real caveat an agent must not assume away.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the interpretation caveat placed second. No filler; the only mild deduction is that the second sentence is slightly telegraphic.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-param listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and to interpret results. Missing return-shape detail is excused by the absence of an output schema.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented, but the description compensates partially by stating the filter matches name/label/function. It omits matching semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity) and the meaning of the empty default.

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 (List) and resource (viewer menu entries) scoped to 'this installation's XUI', which cleanly separates it from mutation-oriented siblings like ui_invoke_menu and ui_click. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action/resource pair is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: a menu listing is naturally a discovery/read step, and the caveat about entries not being 'guaranteed enabled actions' hints at interpretation. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to ui_find/ui_inspect as alternatives.

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