shopify_list_menus

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already in annotations, the description adds the online-store-navigation scope prerequisite, the specific error code SHOPIFY_NAVIGATION_SCOPE_REQUIRED, and the reconnect suggestion. It also says effect must be read, which is a useful guardrail. The approval_ref note about resuming a write is mildly odd for a read-only tool but does not contradict the 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 first sentence is front-loaded and compact, and the Args block is structured and necessary because the schema has no descriptions. It is a bit long but each section earns its place; only minor boilerplate like 'Stable business-action identity' adds little.

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 output shape is provided even though an output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers scopes, failure mode, and pagination. It could be more complete by naming the single-menu alternative or clarifying approval_ref's relevance for read operations, but it is adequate for a simple read tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds real constraints: limit range 1-250, after as a pagination cursor from next_cursor, and the identity/correlation purpose of project and connector fields. Some entries remain generic, but the description compensates well for the empty schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List storefront navigation menus with their nested items', and even includes the returned element shape. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like shopify_get_menu, shopify_create_menu, and shopify_update_menu.

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 states what the tool does and its scope requirement, but it never explicitly names shopify_get_menu as the single-menu alternative or says when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied by the word 'List', but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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