classic_mac_list_menus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists menus and returns titles, but does not disclose whether it affects the application state, requires special permissions, or handles errors. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main action and includes the return value and a prerequisite, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on how the target parameter affects the output, what happens if multiple targets are configured, or any example output, leaving some gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'target', which has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so no extra value is provided. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists menu bar contents for the frontmost application and returns menu titles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like classic_mac_get_menu_items and classic_mac_menu_select, which operate on specific menus or select items.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the requirement for AgentBridge but does not specify when this tool is appropriate or when to use sibling tools like classic_mac_get_menu_items for more detailed menu information.

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