menu_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields, that details=true adds description plus an image that is either image_url, a local image_file, or null, and that details is capped at 8 items with an error when query matches more. It never states read-only/no-side-effect behavior explicitly, which is the remaining gap for a mutation-free listing tool.

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?

Purpose and the sibling differentiation are front-loaded, but the text is one long dense block with lengthy parenthetical category enumerations (面部提拉、祛皱纹、烟熏妆、卡通脸…) that could be trimmed. It is information-dense rather than wasteful, yet the sprawl hurts scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully covers return values, the details variant with image fallback semantics, the 8-item error condition, and which sibling to use for excluded cloud AI items. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: query matches 中文名, 路径 or menu_id with concrete examples, and details has a hard consequence (query matching more than 8 items raises an error) beyond the schema's softer '须不超过 8 个'. instance_id and project_path are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 and resource: lists every official item in the 「添加对象」 menu, and names the returned fields (menu_id, 中文名, 路径, 类型). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools menu_add, add_builtin_object, ai_combine_new and ai_combine_apply, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: this tool enumerates the menu, add_builtin_object covers only part of it, menu_add is for 美容/面部生成/表情生成/性别年龄/五官处理/身体换装, and cloud AI combos use ai_combine_new / ai_combine_apply. It also states an exclusion (云端 AI 生成项不在列表中) and points at image_view when picking effects visually.

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