Get mega menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes the tool is read-only (GET) and returns data as-is, but omits details about potential errors, rate limits, or data volume. The behavioral coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and endpoint. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 description provides the essential operation and return shape, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_menu_items. Without an output schema, it could better describe the nesting structure or use cases.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information but also does not explicitly confirm the absence of parameters. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Fetches' and the resource 'mega menu payload' from a specific API endpoint. It also specifies the result is 'the full nested collections tree as-is', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_menu_items which likely return filtered data.

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 implies usage when the raw, unfiltered mega menu payload is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings (call_ecommerce_api, list_menu_items) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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