open_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does add meaningful behavior: case/accent-insensitive label matching, exact > prefix > contains precedence, support for xmlids, and the fact that it returns a location. It does not discuss side effects, but opening a menu is inherently low-risk navigation.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose, accepted formats, and key matching behavior are all covered efficiently.

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 single-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input variants, separators, matching behavior, and return value. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool 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?

The schema provides only a bare string parameter with no description, so the description must compensate fully. It does: it explains that path can be a label path or xmlid, shows valid separators, gives examples, and specifies the matching strategy.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: open a menu using a label path or xmlid, with concrete examples. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like open_record or action_menu, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

Provides clear instructions on accepted path formats and matching precedence, so an agent knows how to invoke it. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as action_menu or open_record, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites.

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