raisingcanes_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a fixed national menu with no parameters, includes item descriptions and images, and explicitly excludes pricing. It also states the data source (a single published menu page). This provides clear expectations about what the tool does and doesn't return, though it doesn't mention response size or pagination (not needed for a menu).

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 thorough but not excessively verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds relevant details about scope, content, and exclusions. Each sentence contributes value, though some redundancy exists ('full published menu' appears twice).

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, what it doesn't, its fixed national scope, and the absence of pricing. It is complete for making an informed call.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description explicitly states 'it takes no parameters', which is sufficient. There are no parameter semantics to elaborate on beyond this, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches Raising Cane's full published menu, listing sections and item fields. It clearly distinguishes this from per-store/per-region menus and from pricing-related tools by stating it is a single fixed national page.

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 clarifies when to use this tool: for the national menu, not per-store or pricing. It mentions that pricing lives behind a separate ordering flow and is out of scope, guiding the agent away from using this tool for pricing queries. Alternatives are implied through sibling tools like raisingcanes_promotion and raisingcanes_directory.

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