raw_show_extra_menus

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It honestly warns that the action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is material because the name says 'show' but the behavior is a toggle. It also labels the action as static/no-argument, giving an agent a basic risk model.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, parameterization, and side-effect risk. The instruction to inspect the command name is somewhat vague but not padding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough to invoke: no args, toggles a display state, and may be mutating or blocking. It is slightly incomplete in not saying how to inspect the command name or what result to expect, but the low complexity keeps this acceptable.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. The phrase 'no-argument' reinforces that the agent should supply no arguments.

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 a specific action—'Toggle extra menus display'—with a concrete resource (extra menus), and notes it is a static, no-argument Audacity action. This separates it from broad 'raw_*' siblings, though it does not explain what 'extra menus' are or distinguish it from raw_toggle.

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?

No guidance is given about when to invoke this tool instead of related raw_* or toggle operations. 'Inspect the command name first' is a caution, not a selection criterion.

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