get-menu

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what it returns, or error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found). The description essentially restates the tool name, adding no behavioral context.

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 a single direct sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it adds little beyond the tool name. The structure is front-loaded and efficient, but the content is minimal.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description should clarify what is returned and any side effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess about response format or behavior. The sibling context (many get-* tools) implies a standard pattern, but the description does not confirm it.

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 input schema shows a single required parameter 'menu_id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('specific UI menu'), and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get-menus' which retrieves multiple menus. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly mention the menu_id parameter.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'get-menus' for listing all menus or any exclusions or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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