ui_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the cost profile (free, no round trip), the update mechanism (client republishes every tick), and the specific status fields included. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects or describe staleness semantics, but the wording strongly implies a passive read-only query.

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: the main idea is front-loaded, and the cost explanation follows in a compact second sentence. The 'same bargain world_state makes' analogy is slightly jargon-heavy but efficient because it anchors the behavior to a known sibling.

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 zero-parameter query with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: what state is reported, how often it is updated, and what it costs. It could strengthen routing by naming explicit sibling alternatives like ui_tree or ui_find, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema already documents this completely. The description adds context by explaining that no arguments are needed and that the answer costs no round trip, but since parameter coverage is already 100%, the baseline 4 applies.

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 opening line identifies the resource (the client's interface) and its current state, and the second sentence enumerates concrete data points: open menu class, cursor visibility, and modal dialog state. It is clear what the tool reports, but it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'return' or 'get' and does not directly differentiate itself from sibling UI tools such as ui_tree or ui_find.

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 gives clear usage context: this is a free query, already on disk, updated every tick, and requiring no command round trip. It does not explicitly state when to prefer ui_menu over ui_tree or ui_find, nor does it list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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