academy_list_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it returns a menu with item IDs, which is useful behavioral info. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only safe operation, auth requirements, or the menu structure's mutability. With zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would strengthen it, but the read-like nature of listing is reasonably implied.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place; the parent-selection use case adds functional context without bloat.

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?

This is a simple parameterless listing tool with no output schema. The description explains the menu items include IDs and why you'd want them (parent selection). It's reasonably complete, but lacks mention of what subset of items is returned (full tree vs flat list) and whether the menu can be modified. For a listing tool with no schema, it's adequate but could be richer.

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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). No parameter description is needed, so the tool description doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 verb+resource: 'Toon het menu (QuickLaunch) van de Academy met de id's per item' (Show the Academy menu/QuickLaunch with IDs per item). It clearly explains the purpose is to choose a parent to hang a page under, distinguishing its intent from sibling tools like academy_list_pages which lists pages.

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 explains the use case—selecting a parent to attach a page under—which implies when you'd use this tool (before creating/adding menu items). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives like academy_add_menu_item. The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit exclusions.

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