pbi_context_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description thoroughly discloses key behaviors: right-click location (SVG on-path else bbox center), menu item matching (exact then contains), return value shapes, and Escape key to close menu when not clicking. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is a single dense paragraph that could benefit from clearer structuring (e.g., separating behavior, parameters, return values).

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 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers return structure and core behavior well but fails to explain the selector and ariaLabel parameters, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent to use accurately.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. While 'click' is implied in the behavior description, 'selector' and 'ariaLabel' are not explained at all, leaving the agent uncertain about their purpose and usage.

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 purpose: to right-click a data point/visual to open a context menu, read items, and optionally click an item. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_click by focusing specifically on context menu interactions.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for context menu interactions) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It implies differentiation from general click tools but lacks explicit guidance.

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