get_menu_bar_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation (get), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require permissions. The context of sibling tools suggests safe data retrieval, but the description lacks explicit safety or side-effect info.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could front-load the return value type (e.g., 'Returns a hierarchical JSON structure of menu bar items'). The conciseness is good but slightly under-informative.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the structure of the returned hierarchy, pagination, or limitations. More detail would help an agent use the result effectively.

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 coverage is 100% (one param with description 'Process name'). However, the description says 'by PID' while the parameter requires a process name. This contradiction misleads the agent about the correct input. The description adds confusion rather than semantic clarity beyond the schema.

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 'Gets the complete menu bar hierarchy for a process by PID' states the verb and resource, but mismatches the input schema: the parameter is 'processName', not PID. This confusion reduces clarity. It does distinguish from siblings like get_menu_item_state (which gets single item state) but the mismatch harms purpose clarity.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_menu_items or get_menu_item_state. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., process must be running). No indication of when not to use it.

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