menu__get_external_menus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the throttling limit (10 requests/60s) and a caching recommendation, clarifying that the limit is from the MCP server not iikoCloud. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two short sentences: one stating the purpose and one for the return/rate-limit note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides the purpose, the rate limit, and a caching hint. It doesn't detail the response fields, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation. The coverage is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics, which 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 states a specific verb ('Получить' – get) and a clear resource ('список внешних меню' – list of external menus). The name itself distinguishes it from the singular sibling menu__get_external_menu_by_id, and the description reinforces the plural list nature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool vs others. It provides operational guidance about rate limiting and caching, but the choice between this and menu__get_external_menu_by_id is implied by the name rather than stated. This is implied usage, not explicit.

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