get_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'all available items organized by category,' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it's a safe operation, whether it requires authentication, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second adds valuable context about the return format. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the output format, but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or error handling. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it leaves gaps that could hinder optimal agent selection.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'store_id' parameter clearly documented as 'Store ID to get menu for.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Get the full menu for a specific store' specifies the verb (get) and resource (menu), and 'Returns all available items organized by category' adds useful output context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_menu' or 'get_store_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_menu' over 'search_menu' (which likely allows filtering) or 'get_store_info' (which might include menu details), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid store ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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