Get a menu with its items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — that items are returned as an indented tree to make hierarchy obvious — which is not in the annotations. No contradictions exist; the idempotentHint=false is not contradicted by the description since it makes no claim about idempotency.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence states the action, the resource scope, and the output format. There is no filler or repetition; every word 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 simple read operation with only two parameters (both schema-documented), the description covers the essential behavior and return format (tree rendering). No output schema exists, but the description implies the structure. Nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both `id` (with source hint 'The menu ID from list_menus') and `site_id` (with selection rules and reference to list_sites) are well documented. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters or their formatting, so it does not extend beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action (Get), the resource (one navigation menu), and the distinctive behavior (rendered as an indented tree). This distinguishes it from list_menus (which lists menus) and other get_* tools like get_term or get_user, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 this tool is for retrieving a specific menu by ID, but it does not explicitly contrast it with list_menus for browsing or with other getters. There is no guidance on when not to use it or when an alternative would be better. The context is sufficient for a straightforward getter, but explicit routing would improve it.

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