app_context_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: without item it opens, reads, and closes the menu without invoking anything; leaving a popup open blocks the next operation and looks like a hang. It also discloses the failure return shape with offered entries.

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 front-loaded and well structured with Args and Returns sections. Some rhetorical phrasing such as 'ENTIRELY UNREACHABLE' and 'leaves most of the editor shut' is less concise, though it reinforces why the tool matters.

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 three-parameter UI automation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage rationale, parameter sources, empty-item behavior, blocking side effects, and both success and failure return shapes. An output schema exists, so return values are additionally supported structurally.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: x and y are screen coordinates with sources from app_list_panels and app_set_dialog_control(list_only=true), while item is a '|' path matched by name at each nesting level. It also explains the special empty-item behavior.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: right-click at a point to read or choose from a context menu. The description also distinguishes this from top-level menu bar tools by explaining that context menus contain actions no top-level menu duplicates.

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?

It clearly explains when this tool is necessary: context menu actions for components, nets, polygons, and panel rows that the menu bar does not expose. It does not explicitly name the sibling menu-bar tools as alternatives, but the conceptual alternative is clear.

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