get_voice_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns full details including keypress mappings, and that the 'fields' parameter can reduce the payload for cost efficiency. This adds meaningful behavior beyond what schema shows, though it doesn't mention errors, permissions, or rate limits.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second block explains the optional parameter with a clear use case. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean.

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 simplicity, an output schema exists to explain return values, and the description covers the main functionality and the optional field-filtering behavior. It does not mention edge cases or prerequisites, but for a straightforward get tool, the description is sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. The 'fields' parameter is well explained as a comma-separated list of top-level keys for cheaper payloads. The other parameters (account_id, voice_menu_id) are not described, but their names make their purpose obvious. Overall, partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 gets full details for a specific voice menu, including keypress mappings. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from list_voice_menus, which lists menus.

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 does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_voice_menus. It does imply usage for retrieving a single menu's details, and provides guidance for using the 'fields' parameter when checking several menus, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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