get_my_menu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the endpoint and 'get' operation but does not mention authentication requirements, return structure, side effects, or error behavior. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the function and endpoint. No wasted words or fluff; it earns its place by providing the essential identity of the tool.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or any prerequisites. It does not mention the response format (e.g., menu items structure) or whether authentication is required. The description is too thin to be considered complete for a tool with no supplementary structured metadata.

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% (the 'mock' parameter is described as '是否為測試 (1 = 測試資料)'). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema is self-sufficient, so the baseline 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's function: '取得供應商使用者選單' (Get supplier user menu) and includes the exact endpoint 'GET /v1/auth/me/menu'. The verb+resource pattern distinguishes it from sibling tools, and the endpoint adds useful precision.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the function and endpoint; it does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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