shopify_get_menu

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the governed read returns preimage_sha256 for approval binding, requires online-store-navigation scopes, and the exact error code when missing. It also explains why reading before update matters because menuUpdate replaces the whole tree. No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized with a clear opening summary, a concise behavioral caution, and a structured Args list. Every section earns its place, especially given the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The 'menuUpdate' phrasing is a slight format inconsistency but does not add real bulk.

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?

The definition covers scope requirements, error behavior, the preimage hash return used for later mutations, and the item-level depth limit. An output schema exists, so return-format details are not required. The menu_id requiredness mismatch between the description and schema is the main completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block is the only parameter documentation and does provide one-line meanings for all seven fields. However, it states menu_id is 'required' while the schema marks it optional/nullable, which is an inconsistency that could mislead an agent into either supplying it unnecessarily or relying on the schema and omitting it. Effect is accurately described as required and read-only, matching the schema const.

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 opens with 'Fetch a single storefront navigation menu with up to three item levels,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_menus by emphasizing 'single,' and from create/update/delete by explicitly framing it as a read.

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 instruction 'Read the menu before updating it — menuUpdate replaces the whole item tree' gives actionable when-to-use guidance tied to an update workflow. It does not explicitly name list_menus as the alternative for fetching multiple menus, but the 'single' scope implies the distinction.

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