Get parameter menu values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: values are authoritative, from the running build, include dynamically-populated menus, and explains the fallback mechanism with a warning when raw exec is unavailable. This fully discloses the tool's behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 substantive and well-structured, with key information front-loaded ('Read-only: for each menu parameter...'). While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value, such as the use-case hint, behavioral details, and fallback explanation. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, a clear output schema (not shown), and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral traits, edge cases (empty menus), prerequisites, and fallback. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds further meaning by explaining the purpose of 'menu_only' (default true, can be set false to see all parameters) and indicating that 'keys' is case-sensitive. This enhances the schema's built-in guidance.

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 clearly states the verb 'live-fetch' and the resource 'menu parameter values of a node'. It distinguishes itself from generic parameter tools by focusing specifically on menu parameters, and explicitly states the use case: 'Use this before setting a Menu / StrMenu parameter'.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: before setting a Menu/StrMenu parameter. It also explains when not to use (for non-menu parameters) and describes prerequisites (TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=1) and fallback behavior with a stale-catalog warning. It also clarifies the meaning of empty menuNames, preventing misinterpretation.

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