mcp_get_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the name: the response includes the menu's items, distinguishing it from a shallow metadata read. It says nothing about permissions, what error states occur for an invalid id, or the nesting/format of the returned items.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate: the schema covers inputs and the phrase 'with all its items' hints at the payload. Still missing is how to find a valid menu id and how this differs from other menu read tools.

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 parameters (id as numeric Menu ID, site pointing to list_sites) are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (menu) and adds that it returns the menu with its items, which distinguishes it from mcp_list_menus. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with the sibling mcp_list_menus, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. obtaining a menu id via mcp_list_menus), and no exclusions relative to siblings like mcp_get_menu_locations. The agent must infer that this is the single-menu fetch.

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