Tuanjie Menu Executor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by saying it can execute menu items. It adds one useful behavioral detail—that additional action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged—but it does not describe side effects, return shape, or state changes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core function appears in the first sentence, followed by supported actions and the pass-through note. The action enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but there is no filler and the structure is scannable.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a destructive action, the description needed to explain what execute expects and what get_available_menus returns; it does neither. An agent cannot reliably know what additional properties to pass. Only the action enum is fully specified.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only restates action enum values already present in the schema. It says action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged without naming them or giving their format; for execute, the required menu identifier/path is left unspecified. This is insufficient for invoking the tool correctly beyond the two enum choices.

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 names the resource ('Tuanjie Editor menu items') and the core verbs ('Lists or executes'), giving a clear statement of function. It also enumerates the supported actions explicitly. It does not contrast itself with sibling tools such as execute_custom_tool or unity_script, so sibling differentiation remains implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives. The supported-actions list implies intended operations but does not tell an agent when to choose unity_menu over execute_custom_tool, execute_csharp_script, or the many unity_* siblings.

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