Get a menu with its items

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds the trait of returning an indented tree, which is useful. But it doesn't mention output format details, pagination, or whether items include metadata, and with no output schema, the description could provide more behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place — no fluff.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is decent but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what happens if the menu id doesn't exist, how failures are handled, or the exact tree format. Given the sibling tools and context, it's adequate but not complete enough to anticipate edge 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both id and site_id are well-described in the schema. The description adds the indented tree rendering which relates to the purpose, not to specific parameters, so it doesn't add much parameter-specific value beyond the 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 clearly states the purpose: retrieve one navigation menu and its items, rendered as an indented tree. It distinguishes from list_menus (which lists menus) and menu item tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 you need a specific menu's hierarchy, but does not explicitly say when to use this versus other menu-related tools. It assumes the agent will infer from context, which is adequate but not stellar.

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